13. R1 first to second floor ratioCity of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. IJ
Agenda Date: October 21, 2008
Application: MCA-2008-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: City-wide
Summary:
Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 Ordinance (section
19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to
the first floor building area.
The revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater
architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed
building area on an Rl lot or changing the required second story setbacks.
The Ordinance amendment will also include minor language clarifications relating to
gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of
the document, Application No. MCA-200~~-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny:
• MCA-2008-03, citing the need for a more comprehensive design review process
for two story homes.
The City Co>ruuil may consider the following alternatives:
1. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and 'initiate a review of the
R1 Ordinance including but not, limited to topics on the ratio of 2nd floor area to
15t floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall R1 design review
standards/process; or
13-1
A4CA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Pave 2
2. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work
with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final
ordinance details for consideration.
BACKGROUND:
On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the P1aiu1ilg Commission work program to
vlclude a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the
second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The intent is to
allow greater design flexibility to property owners.
The Council directed the P1aiuling Commission to present recommendations on
ordinance options to the City Council.by October 2008. On July 8, 2008, the Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed Rl Ordinance amendment. The Commission
directed staff to provide a focused ordinance frainev~~ork with specific list of principles
and guidelines that will address Cupertilo's residential development needs.
On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed design review
framework, and recommended denial to the City Council, citing the need for a more
comprehensive design review process for two story homes to address overall massing,
design and review process.
DISCUSSION:
The currently 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style
of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story
homes or additions n many neighborhoods. By creating a process that allows
homeowners to increase the second floor ratio, ne~v architectural opportunities become
available. '
Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or
decreasilg the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the milimum
setback requirements. Through appropriate design review and specific enhanced
design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit n
exchange for higher design quality and broader range of architecture. Iii addition, the
proposed process is voluntary, only applicable to those wishing to increase their
second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing R1
Ordnance would only be subject to the current R1 Ordinance standards.
Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for the
detailed staff proposal.
13-2
n4CA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 3
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Miller voting no) to not recommend the proposed
approach to deal with the 2nd floor to 1St i7oor ratio. The Commission believes that the
concern for design diversity and functionality are better addressed by evaluating a
more comprehensive design review :process for t~vo story homes including
consideration of the allowable overall floor are ratio and the 2nd floor to 1St floor ratio.
Primary concerns of the Planning Commission are as follows:
^ Massive and visually intrusive Homes will result fr'o112 111C1'eaS111g tJ1e 21~ floor ratio to
potentially 100% of tJ2e 1St floor (especially o~z small lots). .
^ Not enough process or detail specifies to achieve t12e desired architectural quality and
diversity.
^ Evaluation should also include the total floor area ratio afid a more comprehensive
design review process.
^ Clear expectation of the design requirements and review time should l7e provided.
Please refer to the attached September 9, :2008 and July 8, 2008, Planning Commission
meeting minutes for the detailed discussion.
Staff Comments/Recommendation
Massive and visually intrusive homes:
In most cases, having 100% 2nd floor area to 1St floor area ratio is impractical and
mathematically challengilg due to the physical constraints resulting from typical lot
sizes, minimum setbacks, and functional living space requirements on the 1St floor.
Those lots that can accommodate bet~veen 75-100% 2nd floor to 1St floor ratio would
have to substantially reduce their building; footprints to not exceed the total floor area
of 45% (see illustration # below). Conseq~~ently, residences ~Tould be oriented further
away from adjacent properties, creating more outdoor space/buffer and lessen visual
intrusions.
Tlne illustrations below are example building footprnts and setbacks on two typical
Cupertino lot sizes (5,000 and 7,000 squarE~ feet) intended to compare buildung massing
and relationship to adjoining properties between a typical 45% 2nd floor to a 100% 21zd
floor.
13-3
MCA-2008-03 - R 1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 4
~, ~ +- ~
r
~~ x' ~Nt ~I Y,I
E 1 -
' ~
I I i
I ' I I
I
- -~ ' -.-._ ~ ~ ~Fd~r
j--- -r'---:-
._ _..I-_------ -~-- - I sf~r
-~- -
1 I ~~ i
I ~
I i i
I I I
1 I I
1 I Fk+•' ~ I i
-~ ~ - - -i
i ~
f~r~luj~
- uu>f
-"-MlhiiHCitl ~~5
--. f?~k Sw W.~::.ARt 4
tits'} ~c'Fta;ePryC'~
_..f ~~T
~''~
,tea f5 ~-{
~~ ~
*- ~ ,,
u., ~~
~~ ~ ~ '~'I
N_,+I ~x~ HI ~1
'~ I~ i
I 1 ~ j
i ,
-- - I I-- yc~r r7
_ _ I I tSPCc7
.i
1 I
I
I
I
W I ~
n. ~
`•, ! j ~ '"
i I I
I
I f
1
-_ _ _._ _-'_~_-..~_ .__...I,._ 6c Fes'
- - ~ - -- - - - - ~ I 2=`Getr
i -~---1----
1 i I
I I '
I i
1 I
_ PrRO~.'Y _ I I
~ I z
~ I
~,I),~
PRtfLRFYUNE
_~-~K~IN~uH S,~T
f-- ~'if~k s`"~~ "3~s FZ ~ FRR~
C+oo t
l~~~
a"`r - rs-->
Lot Size: 5,000 Square Feet
Lot Dimensions: 50 feet X 100 feet
13-4
MCA-2008-03 - R 1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Paae 5
~ ~ ~
w
~', 4: +~
~ .....
~ ~ F
- try. Oi REnF. ~'! ~I
~ ~ I
i
I
I
-t_ _ Z9ft:T
7.3 fF L-r - -? ------------ -- ~ - --
- - I I_ ~----- ~zsF~c-t
I ! '
2 5 FF: t
zC+F€E7
~i ~i FAQ "'! `~~
' ,
' i I
' i i
_t t I I
_' _
I I---- ----- -- - - - i -1---
--l--i ~-- - ---- ---- ....-. ----
I j
! + I
' ! i ,
i t
i
I ~ ~ !
+ I i n
I t '
! I t
1 I
1 ,
I
-t. _-_-- - - -- I '~ '--
---1~--- ---...~-._.~---- ---~ - --
~ ~i
! I
I
!
+ ~ Ft~r I I
! !
L~~a ~
v Pk6PbR7M b~u5 '
R _ 1{LVl~ttcH r+Pt.MCaS
-..~ H ~~ 3 $~i ~~avL rAr1
~..~ f-fi.c 22-#~--~-r
i t
! I
t t i
I ~ ' i
! t
t ~ I
I !
I + '
~ ~ I
I ~ I
j I I
f I I I
~ t t !
+ F~oN~ i
!
t ~ ~~P~°rtCTVtlt~ i
~~~ 1A1VIl~vM ~
8f~ Bu= ~h8tf ~~.,
t~ - Fl~C
_ f~T
-- - ZO Frt:T
~r
,~•ts- f0 --f
1C-~
Lot Size: 7,000 Square Feet
Lot Dimensions.: 70 feet X 100 feet
Council Option: If the Council finds merit u1 the proposed ordinance framework, the
Council may elect to cap the maximum 2n+~ floor building area to 1St floor building area
ratio at 100% or less.
Additional process and details deeded to achieve architectu~•al diversity:
The intent of the new design review process for homes exceedu1g 45% second floor to
first floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility. Therefore any new
design standard must provide adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of potential
design concepts. The staff proposed ordinance framework includes specific design
- 13-5
MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 6
principles and visual relief techniques. These principles and techniques are not
intended to establish or dictate a specific style or mass but would rather provide
assistance to applicants to understand various methods for minimizing visual mass.
Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for
additional details on the proposed design principles and visual relief techniques.
Council Option: The Council can direct additional review process or details if
necessary.
Additio~zal evaluation of the total floor area ratio and a more compreherzsive design review
process:
As mentioned previously, staff believes that achievilg architectural diversity does not
require changing the maximum 45% total buildung floor area ratio. By creating a
process that allows applicants to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural
opportunities become available. Staff believes the proposed design principles and
review requirements would offer an alternative and streaml"used process for
homeowners and design professionals.
Council Option: The City Council can initiate a more comprehensive residential
design review process/guidelines similar to Los Gatos and Los Alto, if warranted.
Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes
Setback surcharge and 50% second floor exposed wall requirement
Aside from the proposed design principles and techniques, staff suggests that homes
exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempt
from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the 50%
second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed
visual relief measures discussed in the previous section of the staff report.
Other miscellaneous changes
Staff is recommendung additional language clarifications be made relating gardening
activities allowed in the Rl district and minor wording change to improve readability
of the general Rl Ordinance. Please see attached redline ordinance XXX for additional
details.
13-6
ACA-2008-03 - R 1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 7
COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may consider the following options:
1. Do not authorize any change to the R1 Ordinance.
2. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the
R1 Ordinance including but not limited to topics on the ratio of 2nd floor area to
1St floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall R1 design review
standards/process.
Note: This option will add significant time and cost to the process. The City
would have
3. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work
with the City Architectural ConsulEant and return in a month to present final
ordinance details for consideration.
Submit~d by:
Steve Piasecki ~
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance Recommendations
Exhibit B: Existilg Ordinance
Exhibit C: P1aruling Commission Staff Report with attachments, August 26, 2008
(postponed September 9, 2008)
Exhibit D: P1aiu1ilg Commission Meeting i~raft Minutes, September 9, 2008
Exhibit E: Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, July 8, 2008
13-7
Exhibits A
CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (Rl) ZONES
Section
19. ~ t~.~; l Ct Purposes.
l9. ~.C!~i! Applicability of regulations.
19.~~.U=CE Pernutted uses.
19. ~ ~.(~T 1 Conditional uses.
19._~.1~~!_' Development regulations (site).
19.S.Ub~i Development regulations (building).
1'~. ~ ~.t1-Cl Landscape requirements.
19.=~.O~U Pernutted yard encroachments.
19._~.Q90 Minor residential peanut.
19.~~.iOG T«~o-story residential peanut.
19.8.110 E~:ceptions.
19.,4.1,0 Development regulations-Eichler (R1-e).
19.?8.1?0 Development regulations-(Rl-a).
l 9..8.1-~U Interpretation by the Planning Director.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance
areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual
residential parcels;
13-8
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential
neighborhoods;
D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community; (Ord. 1954,
(part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be
hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence
district other than in conformance ~~,-ith the provisions of this chapter and other applicable
provisions of this title. (Ord. 194, (part), 200; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834,
(part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses ':='~ ~r,~ pernutted in the R-1 single-fanuly residence district:
A. Single-famil}y use;
B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures
described in Ch~?~?~r 19.x?, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional
use pernut;
C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to pernutted uses and
otherwise confornng with the provisions of Chatter 1 y.~Ci of this title;
D. Home occupations in accordance with the provisions of Chatter 19.9;
E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products_ .`: - , .._ ,:: -.r ;:,_ '-.-
F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency
or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider fanuly or
staff; y
G. Small-family day care home;
H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more
than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site;
I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but
excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
13-9
J. Lame-fanuly day care homes, which meet the parking criteria contained in
Ch~t~t~r 1 u.100 and which are at least three hundred feet from any other large-fanuly day
care home. The Director of Conununity Development or his/her designee shall
administratively approve lame day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
pro~:inuty requirements;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. (Ord. 1954, (part), ?005; Ord.
1860, § ] (part), ?000; Ord. 183-, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 199; Ord. 167,
(part), 1994; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 199?)
19.28.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence
district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit:
A. Issued by the Director of Community Development:
Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by C;;uoter 19.1 ~-~;
2. Lame-fanuly day care home, «-loch otherwise does not meet the criteria for a
pernutted use. The conditional use pernut shall be processed as provided by Section
15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code;
3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require
variations from setbacks upon a deternunation by the Director that such design feature or
features will not result in privacy impacts, shado«-ing, intrusive noise or other adverse
impacts to the surrounding area;
4. Second d«elling units which require a conditional use pernut pursuant to Chapter
19.84;
5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use pernut pursuant to Ch~~e: '-.>=
of this title.
B. Issued by the Planning Conuiussion:
1. T~~~o-story structures in an area designated for cone-story linutation pursuant to
Section i U. ~:~.~_~~i:i G(6) of this chapter, provided that the Planning Conu-iussion
deternunes that the structure or sti~ctures «-i11 not result in privacy impacts, shado«~ing,
or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area;
Group care activities with greater than six persons;
Residential care facilities that fall into the following categories:
13 - 10
a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or
department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or
staff;
b. Facility that has the appropriate State, County agency or department license and
seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum
distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care
facility;
c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by the State, County agency or
department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff,
is a nunimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another
residential care facility;
4. Congregate residence with eleven or more residents, which is a nunimum
distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has
a nunimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. (Ord. 1954,
(part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998;
Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 199; Ord. 167, (part), 1994; Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601,
Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations.
1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet)
folio~ving the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are as follows:
Zoning S3-mbol Number Minimum Lot Area in
Square Feet
R 1 5 x,000
R 1 6 6.000
R1 7.~ 7,00
R 1 10 10,000
R 1 ~0 20.000
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by subsection A(1) of this section, but
not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites,
provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled.
B. Lot ~TJidth. The nunimum lot «~idth '-._';-_~ sixty feet measured at the front-
yard setback line, except in the R1-~ district where the minimum lot «-idth is fifty feet.
13 - 11
C. Development on Properties «~ith Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista Drive,
south and «~est of Santa Teresa and Ten-ace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and north of
Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned R1-20 that have an average slope equal to or greater
than fifteen percent -----:-=~_._.: ~ developed in accordance «%ith the follo~~-ing site v
development standards: y
a. Site Grading.
i. All site grading -----== i> linuted to a cumulative total of t«~o thousand five
hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes
grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring grading, but
does not include basements. The graded area ---=~- _~ ~ limited to the building pad area
to the greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple drive«-ays =-=~--_~_
divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., h~-o lots sharing a drive~~-ay ~~~ill divide
the drive~~,-ay grading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the
grading quantity allowed for that lot de~relopment. A maximum of t«~o thousand square
feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded.
ii. All cut and fill areas -~----== _-e rounded to follow the natural contours and
planted ;~-ith landscaping wluch meets the requirements in Section 1 y.~U.~~UG.
iii. A licensed landscape architect shall revie«~ grading plans and, in consultation
with the applicant and the City Engineer, -'-:.:': subnut a plan to prevent soil erosion and
to screen out and fill slopes.
iv. If the flat yard area (excluding drivewa}js) exceeds 2,000 square feet or the cut
plus fill of the site exceeds 2,00 cubic yards, the applicant '-~'.'. '-:_ required to obtain a
Site and Architectural approval from the Planning Comnussion.
13 - 12
b. Floor Area.
i. The maximum floor area ratio --=_:.". `-_ i, forty-five percent of the net lot area for
development proposed on the existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or
less than 10% slope, of any lot.
Formula: A = 0.4~ B: where A =maximum allo~~~able house size and B =net lot
area.
ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding slopes of 10% and
producing floor area exceeding 4,00 square feet of total house size, require approval
from the Planning Conulussion in accordance with Ci~:.:;,ie, ; ~. ~ =~ of the Cupertino
?~~unicipal Code.y
iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are pernutted provided that the
total FAR of the existing building and addition does not exceed 45%.
c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second floor and balcony revie«~ process
shall be consistent with the requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District
( C.,:~:~; i'=.--!_i). The amount of second floor area is not linuted provided the total floor
area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio.
d. Retaining ~~Jall Screening. Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be
screened with landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced
block, river rock or sinular materials subject to the approval of the Director of
Community Development.
e. Fencing.
i. Solid board fencing ---= =- ;~ limited to a five thousand square foot site area
(excluding the principal building).
ii. Open fencing (composed of materials «-hich result in a nunimum of seventy-five
percent visual transparency) shall be uiuestricted except that such fencing over tlu•ee feet
in height may not be constructed within the front yard setback.
(Ord. 163, (part), 1993)
f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees «-ith a diameter less than 18 inches
may be removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development. Removal of protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal
of more than t«~o protected trees requires approval of a tree removal pernut by the
Planning Conulussion in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.
2. 1\'o structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater
unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 1 ~~.~+~.i. l ' Ci, unless no more than
13 - 13
five hundred square feet of development, including gradinG and structures, occurs on an
area with a slope of thirty percent or Greater.
D. An application for building pernuts filed and accepted by the Community
Development Department (fees paid and pernut number issued) on or before October 2,
2007 may proceed «%ith application processing under ordinances in effect at that time.
(Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007: Ord. ]9~4, (part), 200.5; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 163, § 1
(part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot CoveraGe. The magi-mum lot coverage ' --' --- , _ forty-five percent of the
net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allo« ed for roof overhangs,
patios, porches and other sinular features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside
(maximum) linut for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the
residential development standards and Guidelines in this ordinance in deternunina
whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible ~~~ith the surrounding
neighborhood.
The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot - `:~- !'-~_ forty-five
percent.
2. The maximum floor area of a second story ',~."'---_. forty-five percent of the
existinG or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is
greater.
3. >i~terior areas «~ith heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top
of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a t« o-story house and --- ----_ counted
as floor area.
a. If the house is a t«~o-story house, this area «-i11 count as second story floor area;
otherwise, the area will count as first floor area.
C. Design Guide]ines.
1. Any new t«~o-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
Generally consistent «jith the adopted single-fanuly residential Guidelines. The Director of
Community Development shall review the project and shall deternune that the foliowing
items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design-'.- -: __~ reasonably compatible with the
predonunant neighborhood pattern. I~Tew construction shall not be disproportionately
13 - 14
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve
higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut.
d. hTO more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of
garage area.
e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can
increase the apparent mass of the second story.
f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood
should be maintained. y
g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned
with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
h. Porches are encouraged.
Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more.
All second story roofs should have at least gone-foot overhang.
D. Setback-First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a
curved driveway the setback ----- : ~ a nunimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no
more than t«•o such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. y
?. Side Yard. The combination of the t«-o side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet,
except that no side }Jard setback may be less than five feet.
a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is
twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet.
b. For interior lots in the Rl-~ district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both
sides.
c. For lots that have more than t~vo side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all
side yards bet«~een the front property line and the rear property line.
3. Rear Yard. The nunimum rear yard setback is t«~enty feet.
13 - 15
a. ~TJith a Minor Residential Permit, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback
may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than
t«~enty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line.
4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum
of twenty feet from a street property line.
a. For projects with three-car Qara~es oriented to the public right-of-way, the «~all
plane of the third space shall be set back a nunimum of t«~o feet from the wall plane of
the other t~~,~o spaces.
E. Setback-Second Story.
Front and Rear Yards. The nunimum front and rear setbacks are t« enty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except
that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet.
a. In the case of a flag lot, the nunimum setback is twenty feet from any property
line.
b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property
line and t«~enty feet from any rear property line of a single-fanuly d«~elling.
3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any
combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in tlus section.
F. Basements.
1. The number, size and volume of light«°ells and basement windows and doors
shall be the nuiumum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one li~.ht~~~ell
may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long. y
2. No part of a light«-e11 retaining «-a11 may be located «~ithin a required setback
area, e~:cept as.follo«~s:
The minimum side setback for a light«~ell retaining «-a11 ----?--'-:_,_. ~ five feet:
b. The nunimum rear setback for a liQht~vell retaining wall '::-~-~}-~ ,~ ten feet.
3. Light«~ells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for light~vells shall be no hither than tlu-ee feet in height and shall be
located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.200~ S-4
13 - 16
~. The perimeter of the basement and all light«~ell retaining ~~,~alls shall be treated
and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
G. Height.
1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal d«~ellina in an R1 zone
shall not exceed t«~enty-eight feet, not including fireplace chin7neys, antennae or other
appurtenances.
2. Building Envelope (One Story).
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures
and single-story sections of t~~,-o-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined
by:
A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line;
2. A t«~enty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot 17igh line
referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section.
b. I~TOtwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a
gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum «~all height of
seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet
with a Minor Residential Permit.
3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second
story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a
n7inimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story
wall.. The overlap shall be stl-uctural and shall be offset a n7inimum of four feet from the
first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Conununity Development may approve an exception to this
regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D.
4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height :: ~' '., - _ fourteen feet
- 1 - V ~ i' ~l .r
~. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings
«-ithin a designated area be lin7ited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by
affixing an i designation to the R1 ZOI7117Q district.
H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with vie~~-s into
neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject
to Section 1928.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of
the pern7it requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy
13 - 17
protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an
outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other
sinular unenclosed features.
1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach tlu•ee feet into the front setback for
the principal d«~elling.
2. The nvnimum side-yard setback ~'-_--~~~: fiftee-n feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback __~~:_.~ twenty feet.
I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be
varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such
structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar
structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may
be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Perrot subject to Section
19.28.090.
(Ord. 194, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, §
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord.
1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part),
1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.070 Landscape Requirements.
To nutigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and bulk of new two-story homes and
additions, tree and/or slu•ub planting is required. The intent of this section is to provide
substantial screening within tluee years of the planting.
A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to ne«~ two-stor}~ homes, second-
story decks, t«~o-story additions, or modifications to the existing second-story decks or
existing windo«~s on existing t«-o-story homes that increase privacy impacts on
neighboring residents. Sk}-lights, «-indows «-ith sills more than five feet above the
finished second floor, windo«-s with permanent, exterior louvers up to six feet above the
finished second floor, and obscured, non- operable windo«-s are not required to provide
privacy protection planning.
B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a ne«~ two-story house or a second stor}%
addition shall be accompanied by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location,
species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs.
1. New trees or sluubs '-..', `- ~_` required on the applicant's property fo screen
views from second-story windows. The area where planting is required is bounded by a
thirty-degree angle on each side windo«~ jamb. The trees or slu-ubs shall be planted prior
to issuance of a final occupancy pernut.
13 - 18
a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an
Internationally Certified Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the
existing trees/slu-ubs have the characteristics of privacy planting species, subject to
approval by the Director or Community Development.
b. Affected property o«mer(s) may choose to allow privacy planting on their own
property. )i1 such cases, the applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance of
a building permit.
2. ~TJaiver. These privacy nutigation measures may be modified in any «=ay «=ith a
signed waiver statement from the affected property o~~=ner. h-Zodifications can include
changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or location.
C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for new t«~o-story homes and t«=o-story
additions must plant a tree in front of new second stories in the front yard setback area.
The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a mininwm height of six feet. The Director
of Community Development can waive- this fi'ont-yard tree if there is a conflict with
existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-of-«=ay.
D. Species List. The Planning Division shall maintain a list of allo«=ed privacy
planting trees and shrubs. The list y-=- : include_ allo«=ed plant species, nunimum size of
trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and planting distance bet«-een trees.
E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a covenant with the Santa Clara
County Recorders Office that requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of
existing vegetation as privacy plantin=, prior to receiving a final building inspection from
the Building Division. This regulation does not apply to situations described in
subsection B(1)(b) of this section.
F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting
maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a gro«=th
rate expected for a particular species. y
G. Replacement. ~'~here required planting is removed or dies it must be replaced
within thirty days with privacy tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless
it is deternuned to be infeasible by the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1954,
(part), 2005)
19.28.080 Permitted I'ard Encroachments.
A. Vdhere a building legally constructed according to existing }=ard and setback
regulations at the time of construction, encroaches upon preseait required yards and
setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended along its existing building
lines if the addition receives a Minor Residential Pernut and conforms to the following:
13 - 19
Exhibit B
19.28.010
CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-F~~MILY RESIDENTIAL (Ri) ZONES
Section
19,28,010 Purposes.
19.28.020 Applicability of regulations.
19.28.030 Permitted uses.
19.28.040 Conditional uses.
19.28.050 Development regulations (site).
19.28.060 ~ Development regulations (building).
19.28.070 Landscape requirements.
19.28,080 Permitted yard encroachments.
19.28.090 Minor residential permit,
19.28.100 Two-story residential permit.
19.28.110 Exceptions.
19.28.120 Development regulations-Eichler
(Rl-e).
19.28.130 Development regulations-(R1-a).
19.28.140 Interpretation by the Planning
Director.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to
create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached
dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision of light, air and a reasonable;
level of privacy to individual residential parcels;
C. Ensure a reasonable level of compatibility in scale:
of structures within residential neighborhoods;
D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity settin€;
in the community; (Ord. 1954, (pari), 2005; Ord. 1868.,
(part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000.; Ord. 1834, (part)„
1999; Ord, 1601, Exh, A (part), 1992)
19.28.020 Applicability of Regulations.
No building, structure or land shall be used, and na
building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally
altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district
other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter
and other applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 1954.,
(part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part).,
1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19,28.030 Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 single-•
family residence district:
A, Single-family use; .
B, A second dwelling unit conforming to the
provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapter
19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a
conditional use permit;
C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with
the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title;
D. Home occupations in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 19.92;
E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food
products for consumption by occupants of the site;
F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the
appropriate State, County agency or department with six or
less residents, not including the provider, provider family or
staff;
G. Small-family day care home;
H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult
household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs
or cats maybe kept on the site;
I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility
services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices,
construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards;
J. Large-family day Gaze homes, which meet the
parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which are
at Ieast three hundred feet from any other large-family day
care home. The Director of Community Development or
his/her designee shall administratively approve large day
care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and
proximity requirements;
K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord.
1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657,
(part), 1994; Ord. 1601, fixh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.040 Conditional Uses.
The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the
R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance
of a conditional use permit:
A. Issued by the Director of Community
Development:
1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established
by Chapter 19.124;
29
2005 S-4 13 - 20
19.28.040 ~ Cupertino -Zoning 30
2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise
does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The
conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by
Section 15,97.46(3) of the State of California Health and
Safety Code;
3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar
design features that require variations from setbacks upon a
determination by the Director that such design feature or
features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing,
intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding
azea;
4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional
use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84;
5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use
permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title.
B. Issued by the Planning Commission:
1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a
one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.060 G(6) of
this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission
determines that the structure or structures will not result in
privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or
other adverse impacts to the surrounding azea;
2. Group care activities with greater than six
persons;
3. Residential care facilities that fall into the
following categories: .
a. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by
the State, County agency or department and has six or less
residents, not including the providers, provider family or
staff;
b. • Facility that has the appropriate State, County
agency or department license and seven or greater residents,
not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum
distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of
another residential care facility;
c. Facility that is not required to obtain a license by
the State, County agency or department and has seven or
greater residents, not including the provider family or staff,.
is a minimum. distance of five hundred feet from the
property boundary of another residential care facility;
4. Congregate residence with eleven or more
residents, which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet
from the boundary of another congregate residence and has
a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard
azea per occupant. (Oid. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1860, § 1
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (pazt), 1999; Ord. 1784, (part),
1998; Ord. 1688, § 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1657, (part), 1994;
Ord. 1618, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.050 Development Regulations (Site).
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations.
2008 S-15
1. Lot azea shall correspond to the number
(multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1
zoning symbol. Examples are as follows:
Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in
Square Feet
R1 5 5,000
Rl 6 6,000
Rl 7.5 7,500
Rl • 10 10,000
Rl 20 20,000
2. Lots, which contain less area than required by
subsection A(1) of this section, but not less than five
thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building
sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this
title are fulfilled.
B. Lot Width. The minunum lot width shall be sixty
feet measured at the front-yard setback line, except in the
Rl-5 district where the minimum lot width is fifty feet.
C. Development on Properties with Hillside
Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed oa properties generally
located south of Linda Vista Drive, south and west of Santa
Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra Bella Drive and
north of Lindy Lane (see map~below) zoned R1-20 that have
an average slope equal to or greater than fifteen percent
shall be developed in accordance with the following site
development standards:
a. Site Grading.
i. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative
total of two thousand five hundred cubic yazds, cut plus fill.
The two thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading
for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas
•13 - 21
30A Single-Family Residential (R1) Zones 19.28.050
requiring grading, but does not include basements. The
graded area• shall be limited to the building pad area to the
greatest extent possible. Grading quantities for multiple
driveways shall be divided equally among the participating
lots, e.g., two lots sharing a driveway will divide the
driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be
charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot
development. A maximum of two thousand square feet of
flat yard area, excluding driveways, may be graded.
ii. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow
the natural contours and planted with landscaping which
meets the requirements in Section 19.40.OSOG.
iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review
grading plans and, in consultation with the applicant and the
City Engineer, shall submit a plan to prevent soil erosion
and to screen out and fill slopes.
iv. If the flat yard area (excluding . driveways)
exceeds 2,OD0 square feet or the cut plus fill of the site
exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the applicant shall be required to
obtain a Site and Architectural approval from the Planning
Commission.
b. Floor Area.
i. The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five
percent of the net lot area for development proposed on the
existing flat pad portion, defined as pad areas equal to or
less than 10% slope, of any lot.
Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A =maximum
allowable house size and B =net lot area.
ii. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad
exceeding slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding
4,500 square feet of total house size, require approval from
the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter
19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are
permitted provided that the total FAR of the existing
building and addition does not exceed 45 %.
c. Second Floor Area and Balcony. The second
floor and balcony review process shall be consistent with the
requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District
(Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not
limited provided the total floor area does not exceed the
allowed floor area ratio.
d. Retaining Wall Screening. Retaining walls in
excess of five feet shall be screened with landscape materials
or faced with decorative materials such as split-faced block,
river rock or similar materials subject to the approval of the
Director of Community Development.
e. Fencing,
i. Solid board fencing shall be limited to a five
thousand square foot site area (excluding the principal
building).
ii. Open fencing (composed of materials which result
in a minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency)
shall be unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet
in height may not be constructed within the front yard
setback. (Ord. 1634, (part), 1993)
f. Tree Protection. Up to two protected trees with
a diameter less than 18 inches may be removed to
accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the
Director of Community Development. Removal of
protected trees exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than
two protected trees requires approval of a tree removal
permit by the Planning Commission in accordance with the
Tree Ordinance.
2. No structure or improvements shall occur on
slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is
granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no
more than five hundred square feet of development,
including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a
slope of thirty percent or greater.
D. An application for building permits filed and
accepted by the Community Development Department (fees
paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2,
2007 may proceed with application processing under
ordinances in effect at that time. (Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord.
2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord, 1886, (part),
2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000;
Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § I (part), 1993; Ord.
1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall
be forty-five percent of the net lot area. An additional five
percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs,
patios, porches and other similar features not substantially
enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Areh Ratio. The objective of the floor area
ratio (FAR) is to set an outside (maximum) limit for square
footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the
residential development standards and guidelines in this
ordinance in determining whether the mass and scale of the
project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2008 S-15
13-22
Cupertino - Zonfng 30B
13-23
31 ~ Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.060
1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on
a lot shall be forty-five percent.
2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall
be forty-five percent of the existing or proposed first story
floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet, whichever is
greater.
3. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet,
measured from the floor to the top of the roof-rafters, have
the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted
as floor area.
a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will
count as second story floor area; otherwise, the area will
count as first floor area.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story
addition to an existing house, shall be generally consistent
with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The
Director of Community Development shall review the
project and shall determine that the following items are met
prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be
reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood
pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately
larger Wan, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern
in terms of building forms, roof pitches; eave heights, ridge
heights, and entry feature heights; '
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than
high exterior walls to achieve higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be athree-car wide driveway curb
cut.
d. No more Wan fifty percent of the front elevation
of a house should consist of garage area.
e. Long, unarticulated,.exposed second story walls
should be avoided since it can increase We apparent mass of
We second story.
f. The current pattern of side setback and garage
orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained:
g. Whenpossible, doors, windows and architectural
elements should be aligned wiW one another vertically and
horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
h. Porches are encouraged.
i. Living area should be closer to the street, while
garages should be set back more.
j. All second story roofs should have at least a one-
footoverhang.
D. Setback-First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
twenty feet; provided, that for a curved driveway the
setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there
are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring
side by side.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard
setbacks shall be fifteen feet, except that no side yard
setback may be less than five feet.
a. For a comer lot, the minimum side-yard setback
on the street side- of the lot is twelve feet. The other side
yard setback shall be no less than five feet.
b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, the side yard
setbacks are five feet on both sides.
c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the
setback shall be consistent for.all side yards between the
front property line and the rear property line.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is
twenty feet.
a. With a Minor Residential Permit, subject to
Section 19.28.090, the rear setback may be reduced to ten
feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less
than twenty times the lot width as measured from We front
setback line.
4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1
district shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet from a
street property line.
a. For projects withthree-car garages oriented to the
public 'right-of--way, the wall plane of the third space shall
be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of
the other two spaces.
E. Setback-Second Story.
1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and
rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks
shall be twenty five feet, except that no second-story side
setback may be less Wan ten feet.
a, In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is
twenty feet from any property line.
b, In We case of a comer lot, a minimum of twelve
feet from a street side property line and twenty feet from
any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling.
3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet
shall be added in whole or in any combination to We front
and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section.
F. Basements.
I. The number, size and volume of lightweils and
basement windows and doors shall be the minimum required
by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation, except that in We case of a single-story house
wiW a basement, one lightwell may be up to ten feet wide
and up to ten feet long.
2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall may be
located within a required setback area, except as follows:
a: The minimum side setback for a lightwetl
retaining wall shall be five feet;
b. The minimum rear setback fora lightwell
retaining wall shall be ten feet.
3. Lightwelis that are visible from a public street
shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than
three feet in height and shall be located immediately adjacent
to the lightwell.
2005 S-4
13-24
19.28.060 Cupertino -Zoning 32
5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell
retaining walls shall be treated and/or reinforced with the
most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development. '
G. Height.
1. Maximum Building Height. The height of a~
principal dwelling in an R1 zone shall not exceed twenty-
eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or
other appurtenances.
2, Building Envelope (One Story).
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building
height on single-story structures and single-story sections of
two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined
bY~ '
1. A ten-foot high vertical line: from natural grade
measured at the property line;
2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected
inward at the ten-foot high line referenced in subsection
G(2)(a)(1) of this section.
b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in
subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a gable end of a roof
enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of
seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from
natural grade, or up to twenty feet with a Minor Residential
Permit.
3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the
total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have
exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a
minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story
roof against the second story wall, The overlap shall be
structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from
the first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Community Development may
approve an exception to this regulation based on the findings
in Section 19.28.110 D.
4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry
feature height shall be fourteen feet.
5. ~ Areas Restricted to One Story. The City, Counci]
may prescribe that all buildings within a designated area be
limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet)
by affixing an "i" designation to the Rl zoning district.
H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second
story decks with views into neighboring residential side or
rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject
to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of
adjoining properties. The goal of the permit requirement is
not to require complete visual protection but to address
privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing
the: construction and use of an outdoor deck. This section
applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other
similar unenclosed features.
1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three
feet into the front setback for the principal dwelling.
2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fif3een
feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty
feet,
I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions
provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure
utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that
po such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or
adjoining property owners. Any solar structure that requires
variation from the setback or height restrictions of this
chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor
.Residential Permit subject to Section 19.28.090.
;Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord.
1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834,
;part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998;
Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord.
(635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601,
i3xh. A (part), 192)
]19.28.070 Landscape Requirements.
To mitigate privacy impacts and the visual mass and
bulk of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or
:shrub planting is required. The intent of this section is to
provide substantial screening within three years of the
planting.
A. Applicability. This requirement shall apply to new
two-story homes, second-story decks, two=story additions,
or modifications to the existing second-story decks or
existing windows on existing two-story homes that increase
~p~rivacy impacts on neighboring residents. Skylights,
vvindows with sills more than five feet above the finished
second floor, windows with permanent, exterior louvers up
b~ six feet above the finished second floor, and obscured,
ion-operable windows are not required to provide privacy
protection planning.
B. Privacy Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-
story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied
by a privacy planting plan which identifies the location,
species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees
or shrubs.
1. New trees or shrubs shall be required on the
a:pplicant's properly to screen views from second-story
v<~indows. The area where planting is required is bounded by
a thirty-degree angle on each side window jamb. The trees
o:r shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final
o~:cupancy permit.
a. New tree or shrubs are not required to replace
e:isting trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified
Arborist or Licenses Landscape Architect verifies that the
e;dsting trees/shrubs have the characteristics of privacy
planting species, subject to approval by the Director or
Community Development.
2005 S-4
13-25
33 Single-Family Residentlal (Rl) Zonea 19.28.070
b. Affected property owner(s) may choose to allow
privacy planting on their own property. In such cases, the
applicant must plant the privacy screening prior to issuance
of a building permit.
2. Waiver. These privacy mitigation measures may
be modified in any way with a signed waiver statement from
the affected property owner. Modifications can include
changes to the number of shrubs or trees, their species or
location.
C. Front-Yard Tree Planting. Applicants for nets
two-story homes and two-story additions must plant a tree in
front of new second stories in the front yard setback area.
The tree shall be 24 inch-box or larger, with a minimum
height of six feet. The Duector of Community Development
can waiver this front-yard tree if there is a conflict with
existing mature tree canopies on-site or in the public right-
of-way.
D. Species List. The Planning Division shall
maintain a list of allowed privacy planting trees and shrubs.
The list shall include allowed plant species, minimum size
of trees and shrubs, expected canopy or spread size, and
planting distance between trees.
E. Covenant. The property owner shall record a
covenant with the Santa Clara County Recorders Office that
requires the retention of all privacy planting, or use of
existing vegetation as privacy planting, prior to receiving a
final building inspection from the Building Division. This
regulation does not apply to situations described in
subsection B(1)(b) of this section.
F. Maintenance. The required plants shall be
maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes
irrigation, fertilization and pruning as necessary to yield a
growth rate expected for a particular species.
G. Replacement. Where required planting is removed
or dies it must be replaced within thirty days with privacy
tree(s) of similar size as the tree(s) being replaced, unless it
is determined to be infeasible by the Director of Community
Development. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.080 Permitted Yard Encroachments.
A. Where a building legally constructed according to
existing yard and setback regulations at the time of
construction, encroaches upon present required yards and
setbacks, one encroaching side yard setback may be
extended along its existing building lines if the addition
receives a Minor Residential Permit and conforms to the
following:
1. The extension or addition may not further
encroach into any required setback and the height of 'the
existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not
be increased.
2. The maximum length of the extension is fifteen
feet.
3. .The extension of any wall plane of a first-story
addition is not permitted to be within three feet of any
property line.
4. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the
life of such building.
5. This section applies to the first story only and
shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an
encroachment by any building, which is the result of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after
such property become part of the City.
B. Architectural features (not including patio covers)
may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding
three feet, provided that 'no architectural feature or
combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or
auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any
property line. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part),
2001; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000;
Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1808, (part),. 1999; Ord.
1618, (part), 1993; Ord, 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.090 Minor Residential Permfts.
Projects that require a Minor Residential Permit shall
be reviewed in accordance with this section. The purpose of
this process is to provide affected neighbors with an
opportunity to comment on new development that could have
significant impacts on their property or the neighborhood as
a whole.
A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete
application, a notice shall be sent by first class mail to all
owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax
assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject property,
including properties across a public or private street. The
notice shall invite public comment by a determined action
date and shall include a copy of the development plans,
eleven inches by seventeen inches in size.
B. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public
comments, the Director of Community Development shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The
permit can be approved only upon making all of the
following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning
ordinances and the purposes of this title.
2. The granting of the permit will not result in a
condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
'the public health, safety or welfare.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and
design with the general neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties
have been reasonably mitigated.
2005 S-4
13-26
19.28.090 Cupertino -Zoning 34
C. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning
Commission, applicant and any member of the public that
commented on the project shall be notified of the action by
first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may
appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the
Planning Commission will make the fmal action on the
appeal. _
D. Expiration of a Minor Residential Permit. Unless
a building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid
and control number issued) within one year of the Minor
Residential Permit approval, said approval shalt become null
and void unless a longer time period was specifically
prescribed by the conditions of approval. In the event that
the building permit expires for any reason, the Minor
Residential Permit shall become null and void. The Director
of Community Development may grant cone-year extension
without a public notice if an application for a Minor
Modification to the Minor Residential Permit is filed before
the expiration date and substantive justification for the
extension is provided.
E. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the
Director of Community Development a Minor Residential
Permit can be processed concurrently with other
discretionary applications.(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.100 Two-Story Residential Permit.
Two-story. additions or two-story new homes require a
Two-Story Residential Permit in accordance with this
section. Two-story projects with a floor area ratio under
35% shall require aLevel ITwo-Story Residential Permit,
while atwo-story project with a floor area ratio over 3531;
shall require a Level II Two-Story Residential Permit.
A. Notice of Application (Level I). Upon receipt of
a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class
mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in
the last tax assessment toll) that are adjacent to the subject
property, including properties across a public or private
street. The notice shall invite public comment by a
determined action date and shall include a copy of the
development plans, eleven inches by seventeen inches in
size.
1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public
notice in the front yard of the subject site that is clearly
visible from the public street. The notice shall be a
weatherproof sign, at least two feet tall and three feet wide
firmly attached to a five-foot tall post. The notice shall
remain in place until an action has been taken on the
application and the appeal period has passed. The sign shall
contain the following:
a. The exact address of the property, if known, or
the location of the property, if the address is not known.
b. A brief description of the proposed project, the
content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. A deadline for the submission of .public
comments, which shall be at least fourteen days after the
date the notice is posted;
e, A black and white orthographic rendering of the
Front of the house, at least eleven inches by seventeen inches
in size. The City shall approve the illustration or rendering
;prior to posting.
B. Notice of Application (Level II). Upon receipt of
~a complete application, a notice shall be sent by first class
email to all owners of record of real property (as shown in
the last tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred
:feet of the subject property. The notice shall invite public
comment by a determined action date and shalt include a
~:opy of the development plans, eleven inches by seventeen
inches in size.
1. Posted Notice. The applicant shall install a public
~iotice consistent with subsection A(1) of this section, except
that a colored perspective rendering shall be required instead
of a black and white orthographic rendering.
C. Story Poles. Story poles are required for any
'Cwo-Story Residential Permit.
D. Decision. After the advertised deadline for public
t:omments, the Director of Community Development shall
~~pprove, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The
hermit ca~i be approved only upon making all of the
following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning
ordinance and the purposes of this title.
2. The granting of the permit will not result in. a
condition that is detrimental or injurious to. property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and
design with the general neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties
rave been reasonably mitigated.
E. Notice of Action. The City Council, Planning
Commission, applicant and any member of the public that
commented on the project shall be notified of the action by
first class mail or electronic mail. Any interested party may
appeal the action pursuant to Chapter 19.136, except that the
Planning Commission will make the fmal action on the
appeal.
F. Expiration of a Two-story Permit. Unless a
building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid
and control number issued) within one year of the Two-
Story Permit approval, said approval shall become null and
void unless a longer time period was specifically prescribed
by the conditions of approval. In the event that the building
permit expires for any reason, the Two-Story Permit shall
become null and void. The Director of Community
I;~evelopment may grant cone-year extension, without a~
2005 S-4 13 - 27
35 Single-Family Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.100
public notice, if an application for a Minor Modification to
the Two-Story Permit is filed before the expiration date and
substantive justification for the extension is provided.
G. Concurrent Applications. At the discretion of the
Director of Community Development, aTwo-Story Permit
can be processed concurrently with other discretionary
applications. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.110 Exceptions.
Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent
of this chapter result from the strict application of the
provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.060,
19.28.070 and 19.28.120 may be granted as provided in this
section.
A. Notice of Application. Upon receipt of a complete
application, the Community Development Department shall
set a time and place for a public hearing before the Design
Review Committee and send a notice by fast class mail to
all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last
tax assessment toll) that are within three hundred feet of the
subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject
site, including those across a public ox private street, shall
receive a reduced scale copy of the plan set with the public
notice.
B. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the
decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or
deny the application based on the findings in this section.
Any interested party can appeal the decision pursuant to
Chapter 19.136.
C. Expiration of an Exception. Unless a building
permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and
control number issued) within one year of the Exception
approval, said approval shall become null and void unless a
longer time period was specifically prescribed by the
conditions of approval. In the event that the building permit
expires for any reason, the Exception shall become null and
void. The Director of Community Development may grant
a one-year extension, without a public notice, if an
application for a Minor Modification to the Exception is
filed before the expiration date and substantive justification
for the extension is provided.
D. Findings for Approval.
1. Issued by the Director of Community
Development. The Director of Community Development
may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulation
described in Section 19.28.060 G(4) upon making all of the
following findings:
a. The project fulfills the intent of the visible
second-story wall height regulation in that the number of
two-story wall planes and the amount of visible second story
wall area is reduced to the maximum extent possible.
b. The except to be granted is one that will require
the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and
the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose.
c. The proposed , exception will not result in
significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties.
2. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The
Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the
prescriptive design regulations described in Section
19.28.060, except 19.28.060 G(4) and Section 19.28.130
upon making all of the following findings:
a. .The literal enforcement of this chapter will result
in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this
chapter.
b. The proposed development will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental
to the public safety, health and welfare.
c. The exception to be granted is one that will
require the least modification of the prescribed design
regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish
the purpose.
d. The proposed exception will not result in
significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.120 Development Regulations-Eichler
(Rl-e).
Rl-esingle-family residence "Eichler dis[ricts° protect
a consistent architectural form through the establishment of
district site development regulations. Regulations found in
the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties
zoned Rl-e. In the event of a conflict between other
regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall
prevail. Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude
a harmonious two-story home or second story addition.
A. Setback-First Story.
1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet.
B. Building Design Requirements.
1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated
with the roof line of the house.
2. The maximum roof slope shall bethree-to-twelve
(rise over run).
3, Wood or other siding material located on walls
facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall
incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart.
4. The building design shall incorporate straight
architectural lines, rather than curved lines.
5. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a
guideline in the R1-e district. '
6. The first floor shall be no more than twelve
inches above the existing grade.
7. Exterior walls located adjacent to side yards shall
not exceed nine feet in height measured from the top of the
floor to the top of the wall plate.
C. Privacy Protection Requirements.
1. Side and Rear Yard Facing Second Floor
Windows. In addition to other privacy protection
requirements in Section 19.28.070, the following is required
for all second story windows: '
2006 S-8 Repl.
13-28
19.28.120 Cupertino -Zoning 36
a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height
of six feet above the second floor; or
b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the
second floor; or
c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum
above the second floor. (Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000)
19.28.130 Development Regulations-(Rl-a).
R1-a districts are intended to reinforce the semi-rural
setting in neighborhoods with large lots. Regulations found
in the other sections of this chapter shall apply to properties
zoned R1-a. 'In the event of a conflict between other
regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall
prevail.
A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. The minimum lot
size is ten thousand square feet.
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be
seventy-five feet measured at the front-yard setback line.
C. Second Story Area. A second floor shall be no
more than forty percent of the first floor, except as follows:
1. A second floor may be at least seven hundred
square feet in area.
2. In no case shall a second floor be more than one
thousand one hundred square feet in area.
D. Setback -First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
thirty feet.
2. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback is ten
feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is
twenty feet.
E. Setback -Second Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is
thirty feet.
2. Side Yard. The combined side yard setbacks shall
be thirty-five feet, with a minimum of fifteen feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is
forty feet.
4. The setback surcharge in Section 19.28.060 E(3)
does not apply in this district.
F. Second-story Regulations.
1. Second story decks shall conform to the second-
story building setbacks, and may be located on the front and
rear only.
2, The second-story shall not cantilever over afirst-
story wall plane.
3, The front-facing wall plane(s) of the second-story
must be offset a minunum of three feet from the first-story
wall plane(s). The intent of this regulation is to avoid atwo-
story wall plane on the front elevation.
G. Front Yard Paving. No more than fifty percent of
the front yard setback area may be covered with a
combination of impervious or semi-pervious surfaces. No
more than forty percent of the front yard setback area may
be covered with an impervious surface such as concrete or
asphalt.
H. Heights. The maximum exterior wall height and
building height on single-story structures and single-story
sections of two-story structures must fit into a building
envelope defined by:
a. A twelve-foot high vertical line measured from
natural grade and located ten feet from property lines;
. b. . A twenty-five degree roof line angle projected
inward at the twelve-foot high line referenced in subsection
H(2)(1) of this section.
I. Variation from the R1 and R1-a regulations shall
require a Variance pursuant to Chapter 19.124 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code in the Rl-a district.
J, Design Review. All two-story development shall
require discretionary review based on Section 19.28.100,
except that the Design Review Committee shall approve or
deny the project at a public hearing based on the findings in
subsection N(1) of this section.
K. Design Guidelines. The guidelines in this section
shall be used in conjunction with the City's Single Family
Residential Design Guidelines. Incases where there maybe
conflict between the two sets of guidelines, this Section shall
take precedence. Nonconformance with the guidelines shall
be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that
there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
1. Second-story windows., Windows on the side
elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of six
feet above the second floor, should have permanent exterior
louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor or
should have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate
intrusion into a neighbor's privacy.
2. All second story wall heights greater than six
feet, as measured from the second story finished floor,
should have building wall offsets at least every twenty-four
feet, with a minimum four-foot depth and ten-foot width.
The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane.
3. Section 19.28.060 G(4) shall be considered a
guideline in the R1-a district. .
4. Garages. The maximum width of a garage on the
front elevation should be twenty-five feet, which will
accommodate atwo-car garage. Additional garage spaces
should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a
detached accessory structure at the rear of the property.
L. Permitted Yard Encroachments.
1. Where a principal building legally constructed
according to existing yard and setback regulations at the
time of construction encroaches, upon present required
yards, one encroaching side yard setback may be extended
along its existing building line.
a. The extension or addition may not further
encroach into any required setback and the height of the
existing non-conforming wall and the extended wall may not
be increased,
2005 S-4 13 - 2s
37 Sfngle-Faruily Residential (Rl) Zones 19.28.130
b. In no.case shall any wall plane of a first-story
addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line.
c. This section does not apply to attached accessory
structures such as attached carports,
d. This section applies to the first story only and
shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an
encroachment by any building, which is the result of the
granting of a variance or exception, either before or after
such property become part of the City.
2. Architectural features (not including patio covers)
may extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding
three feet, provided that no architectural feature or
combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or
auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any
property line.
3. Front Porch, Traditional, open porches are
encouraged in this zone. When viewed from the street, a
porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in
height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a
proportionately greater height than its width. Use of this
yard encroachment provision shall require the approval of
the Director of Community Development.
a. Posts. Vertical structural supports; such as posts,
for porches are allowed to encroach two feet into the
required front setback. Structural supports must be designed
such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
b. Columns, The use of large columns or pillars is
discouraged.
c. Fencing. Low, open fencing for porches are
allowed to encroach two feet into the required front setback
area.
d. Eave Height. The eave height for a front porch
should not be significantly taller than the eave height of
typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
e. Detailing. Porch elements should have detailing
that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence
elements.
f. The porch platform and roof overhang may
encroach five feet into the required front setback,
M: Landscaping,
1. Landscaping plans shall be required for all
additions or new homes. The purpose of the landscaping is
to beautify the property and to achieve partial screening of
building forms from the street and adjacent properties.
Specific measures are not prescribed. Generally, the
landscaping may include shrubbery, hedges, trees, or lattice
with vines on fences.
2. Landscaping plans for two-story development
shall include specific mitigations for impacts from mass,
bulk and privacy intrusion as required in Section 19.28.070
of the Cupertino Municipal Code, except that: .
a. Privacy planting shall have a minimum setback
from the property line equivalent to one-quarter of the
spread noted on the City list.
b. Privacy trees shall have a minimum height of
twelve feet at the time of planting.
c. Front yard tree ptanting shall be placed such that
views from second-story windows across the street to
neighboring homes are partially mitigated.
d. The Duector may waive the front yard tree based
on a report from an internationally certified arborist citing
conflict with existing mature trees.
N. Design Review Findings.
1. Findings. The Design Review Committee may
approve a design review application for two-story
development only upon making all of the fmdings below:
a. The project Is consistent with the Cupertino
General Plan and Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
b. The granting of this permit will not result in
detrimental or injurious conditions to property or
improvements in the vicinity, or to the public health, safety
or welfare.
c. The project is generally compatible with the
established pattern of building forms, building materials and
designs of homes in the neighborhood.
d. ~ The project is consistent with the City's single-
family residential design guidelines and the guidelines in this
chapter and any inconsistencies have been found to not result
in impacts on neighbors.
e. Significant adverse visual and privacy unpacts as
viewed from adjoining properties have been mitigated to the
maximum extent possible.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005)
19.28.140 Interpretation by the Piarming .
Director.
In R1 zones, the Director of Community Development
shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of
the regulations and provisions of thischapter consistent with
the legislative intent thereof. Persons aggrieved by an
interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community
Development may petition the Planning Commission in
writing for review of the interpretation. (Ord. 1954, (part),
2005; Ord. 1860, § 1(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999;
Ord. 1808, (part), 1999; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
2005 S-4
13-30
38
Sfngle-Family Residential (R-1) Zones
[Next page is p;ige 43] '
13-31
39 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.28.150
19.28.150 Appendiz B-Release of Privacy Protection Measures.
Single-Family Residential Ordinance
Ordinance 19.28 (Single-Family) requires that after September 21. 1998 all new two-story additions or homes be required
to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent
affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement.
13-32
19.28.150 Cupertino - ZoninE ~ 40
~,
Property Location
Address;
Date
I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single-Family Residential Ordinance as follows:
Property Owner: _
Address:
Phone:
Signature:
(Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
13-33
41 ~ Slagle-Family Residential (R-1) Zones 19.28.160
19.28.160 Appendix C-Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit.
Purpose. To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according
to the planting plan.
Validation. An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy
of the privacy protection planting. A reduced eleven by seventeen copy of the approved planting plan shall be attached.
Submittal of this form shall be required prior to final inspection of the residence.
Planting Certification
I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at:
'address
and~~at is consistent in design, height and location with the landscapeplantiag and irrigation plans drawn by
dated (attached).
Name
Title
Professional License #
Date
(drd. 1868. (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999)
13-34
19.28.160 Cupertino - :Coning 42
Fxbfbft 1.
30' Angle
eAl~
[r N ~flll
wa,~,-
~.
.,
~~
,.
Privacy Invasion tuiitigativn~
required in slued aFeas
13-35
Exhibit C
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: September 9, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: Citywide
ITEM SUMMARY: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio
requirements
DISCUSSION
'This item was continued from the August 26, 2008 Planning Commission hearing. Please refer
to the attached August 26~ staff report for the detailed analysis.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Senior Plaruler
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm
Attachments
Exhibit A - August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments.
13-36
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: August 26, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: Citywide
Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio
requirements
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review the draft ordinance framework and provide comments or direction to
Staff; or
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment
regarding the first floor to second flo~~r ratio requirements.
BACKGROUND.
On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to
include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the second
floor building area compared to the first .1oor building area. The intent is to allow
greater design flexibility to property oin-ners. The Council directed .the Planning
Commission to present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by
October 2008.
Staff believes through a focused design review process, homes may be allowed to
exceed the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio thereby permitting greater
architectural diversity. On July 8, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed R1 Ordinance amendment. The Commission directed staff to provide a
focused ordinance framework with specifi~~ list of principles and guidelines that will
address Cupertino's residential development needs.
DISCUSSION
Planning Connnission Concern
• The lack of the prescriptive nature oi' the new design review process.
Staff Response: TITe intent of tl2e nezv design review process for homes exceeding 45%
second floor to fi~•st floor building area ratio is to provide greater design flexibility.
Therefore any nezu design standards must provide adequate flexibility to facilitate a
variety of potential design concepts. 7~he proposed ordinance language has been
revised to provide additional specificity (see attached Exhibit A). The proposed
design review process is voluntary, only applicable to those wishing to increase
13-37
MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
August 26, 2008
Page 2
their second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing
R1 Ordinance would only be subject to the current R1 Ordinance standards.
~ The new guidelines may encourage "box" style homes with uninteresting 2-story
wall planes.
Staff Response: Applicants will be required to have an identifiable architectural
style. Specific visual relief measures or elements will be required to ensure that
2-story wall planes are broken up and treated. In addition, high quality and
variation in details and materials will be required.
• Currently, the R1 Exception process allows applicants to propose greater second
floor areas, why create a new process.
Staff Response: The current exception process does not provide any specific
standards and/ or visual relief techniques to treat 2-story wall planes, or
unarticulated walls to ensure architectural integrity. Also, the exception process
is costly and intimidating for average property owners.
Desigr2 Principles
Staff believes that to facilitate greater architectural diversity does not require increasing
or decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the required
second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the
application of enhanced design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45%
second floor area limit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot,
the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure.
Staff recommends that the Director of Community Development may grant approval to
a second floor to ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that all of the followings
design principles are met:
1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided;
2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the
architectural style selected;
3. Materials shall be of high quality;
4. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure;
5. Visual relief shall be provided for two=story walls;
6. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale;
7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance.
The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee or elevated
to the Design Review Committee if needed.
13-38
MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
August 26, 2008
Page 3
Visual Relic Techniques
By allowing second floors to potentially lie larger than 45% of the ground floor to
facilitate other design options, staff recommends that the following visual relief options
for two story walls be added to the Ordinance:
• Extended or wrap around porches
• Pop outs and bay windows
• Material and color changes
• Wide overhangs with projecting brackets
• Juliet balconies
:• Window boxes and pot shelves
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
• Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of
Community Development
Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes
Homes exceeding the 45 % second floor to i'irst floor building area ratio would also be
exempted from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the
50% second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed
visual relief .measures discussed in the previous section of the staff report.
CONCLUSION
If the Planning Commission finds merit iri the proposed ordinance framework then
Staff will work with the City Architectural Consultant to enhance the document with
additional graphics and illustrations. T'he Planning Commission will have the
opportunity to review the final draft beforE~ making its formal recommendation to the
City Council.
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner .~o,~ ~. ~'-
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme
Attachments
Exhibit A - Draft R1 Ordinance Framework Regarding Homes Exceeding 45% Second
Floor to First Floor Ratio
Exhibit B - July 8, 2008 Planning Commis~:ion R1 Ordinance Staff Report and Exhibits
13-39
Exhibit A
City of Cupertino
Draft R1 Ordinance Framework Regarding Homes
Exceeding 45% Second Floor to First Floor Ratio
INTRODUCTION
The design principles listed in this document were created to assist property owners,
developers, and city staff in working together to retain and enhance the special qualities of
Cupertino's neighborhoods. They are intended to allow greater flexibility of architectural styles,
and assist in developing good design practices and solutions. The principles apply to all new or
remodeled two-story residences with second floor building areas greater than 45% compared
with the first floor area.
Traditional Architecture in Cupertino:
The City of Cupertino has a variety of neighborhood architectural styles developed over many
decades. Similar style homes, such as Ranch homes clustered throughout Cupertino, Eichler
homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood, and the Monta Vista bungalows, were often built in
relatively large groupings. Despite the diversity between these styles, they are small in scale
and relatively informal.
Problem Statement:
One recent trend in new or remodeled homes is the demand for significantly larger than older
existing homes. Because of the current 45% second story floor area ratio requirement in the
Single-Family Residential Ordinance, a "wedding cake" style of architecture is slowly becoming
the predominate style for new or remodeled two-story homes. However, through appropriate
focused design review, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor to first floor
building area ratio thereby permitting greater design flexibility.
Design Review Process:
To provide greater flexibility of design, an applicant may increase their second floor area and
second floor wall exposure by applying additional design principles and by participating in
additional architectural review. The Director of Community Development may grant approval of
these projects if the following design principles are met:
Design Principles:
1. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided;
2. Design features, proportions and details shall be consistent with the architectural style
selected;
3. Materials shall be of high quality;
4. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure;
5. Visual relief shall be provided for two-story walls.
6. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale;
7. The design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and balance.
Visual Relief Techniques:
Apply visual relief options for two story walls. Recommended techniques include:
• Extended or wrap around porches
•:• Pop outs and bay windows
• Material and color changes
•:• Wide overhangs with projecting brackets
• Juliet balconies
• Window boxes and pot shelves
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
• Or other similar architectural features
Community Development
deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of
13 - 40
Exhibit B
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: Citywide
Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio
requirements
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the
first floor to second floor ratio requiremen~~s
BACKGROUND
O1n May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission v~Tork program to
include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the
second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. first floor to
second floor ratio requirement. The CoL~ncil directed the Planning Commission to
present recommendations on ordinance ol: tions to the City Council by October 2008.
The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second
floor to first floor ratio should be adjusted. The Council directed that this review
would not consider changung the setback requirements or the allowable overall
building floor area ratio. The concern is i:hat the 45% second story to first floor ratio
requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first
floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the
desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio
results lln a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to design
other traditional styles of architecture such as ;'Victorian" or "Queen Anne." The
following sections of the staff report will discussion ordinance options to adjust the
allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversity.
A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearing was mailed out to Cupertino residents
inviting them to participate i1 the discussion (see attached).
DISCUSSION
Existing Ordinance
The existing Rl Ordinance was updated i:n January 2005. One of the major changes
was to increase the 2nd floor to ground flag ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to
allow enough space on the 2nd story to accommodate three bedrooms jvhile controlling
the overall mass and scale. Since the 2005 ordunance amendment, very fe~v p~.zl~~ic
A2CA-L. ,d-03 -R1 ordin.....~e
7uly 8, X008
Pale 2
concerns have been expressed about the allowable second floor building space.
Rather, there has Ueen an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural
flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio.
V1~eddi~ig Ca~.e Style of Architecture
The current ~5% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of
arcltecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of nets t<aTo-story homes
or additions in many neighborhoods. Although exterior design elements, such as
corbels, ~vailscotng, and tvndow treatments, are provided to suggest an architectural
style, the overall "~~Teddng cake" style is the same from house to house. The images
below are examples of the existing Rl Ordnance "tveddilg cake" style architecture:
Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing
traditional architecture, however the fnal result is greatly limited by the existing
second floor area restriction. This is especially the case on smaller lots Colder 6,000
square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts desib 1 options.
13-42
- ., ~,
,;;,
~.._ -~,
S Y f~~
Y _
~ _ d ~}~ ia~y a 1 r l~ ..
MCA-~,,~8-03 - Rl ordina,,ce
July 8, 2008
Page 3
Traditional Architecture
Traditional architecture, such as Victorian., Queen Anne, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival,
Italian Renaissance, typically have the majority of the second story walls aligned with
the ground floor walls. Second story walls may even cantilever over portions of the
ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change.
What is important to the traditional architectural is the attention and emphasis given
to quality architectural treatments and exterior embellislunents to help visually
minimize what would otherwise be unarticulated walls or boxy forms.
The following are some styles of architecture that may be difficult to design under the
current Rl Ordinance:
When Desi~z Reo lations Are Not Applied to Two-Sfo~y Homes
Two-story "box" forms can be articulated :n a tvay that muiirrtizes the mass. However,
unregulated t<aTo-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing.
Without design review, attempts to mu~unize the mass and scale (as seen u1 the
following image) may not always be appropriate, and may not always aclueve the
intended goal.
13-43
MCA-2w8-03-Ri ordina~~ce
July 8, ?008
Pase ~
Example Design Guidelines From Otlzer Communities
The neighboring communities of Los Gatos and Los Altos have accommodated greater
architectural variety, while meeting the community's privacy and compatibility needs
by requiring a higher level of architectural integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of
a residence is not determined by the second story to first story FAR, but by the
perception that the size and mass of the 1louse is too large for the size of the property.
The goal is to have the home designed to fit the lot, and then apply elements that assist
in reducing the perception of bulk.
The City of Los Altos includes the following list of ways to reduce the perception of
bulk in their residential design guidelines. They are sLUnmarized below:
• Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to break up the
vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low
horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding.
• Soften the elevation jvith the use of architectural elements (porches, bays,
overhangs, trellises), and detail (molding, trip, brackets, etc.)
• Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For example,
painting the triangular area i1 a gable end one color and using a shade (or color)
lighter or darker below.
• Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes. For
example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor.
• Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of
direction u1 sidu1g or addutg moldings i1 stucco can achieve this.
• In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For
example, too many different materials and changes in types of Svildo~vs add
complexity of the facade.
• Minimize use of tall or twa-story-high design elements. Tlis ~a~ould include
t~vo-story entry ~aTays, turrets, ect.
• Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on t~vo story designs. Use
stone or brick as an accent material or wailscot on an elevation. ~s-aa
Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence.
1\2CA-2~~8-03 - Rl ordinance
7uly 8, 2008
Paoe ~
• Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This
should not be a substitute for good design ho~~~ever.
• Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible.
• Use roof forms that reduce bulk (lo~v to medium pitch, minimum number of
hips and valleys.
• Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or
centered on a gable end when possible.
The following is some architectural tecluuques used by Tojvn of Los Gatos to provide
visual relief for tcvo story walls:
• Horizontal belly bands
• Pop outs and bay windo~~Ts
• Material and color changes
• Chirruleys
• Wide overhangs with projectuzg brackets
• Juliet balconies
• Window boxes and pot shelves
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
All or some of the above methods may be applied to a new or remodeled residence
(see images belo~aT).
MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance
July 8, ?008
Page 6
Reco~7znzended Ordinance Solution
Staff believes that achieving architectural dig=ersity does not require increasing or
decreasing. the total allowed building area on aln Rl lot or changing the required
second story setbacks. The goal is through appropriate design review and the
application of enhanced design principles, homes may ~be allo~~~ed to exceed tlne ?5%
second floor area limit provided that that they are designed appropriately for the lot,
the neighborhood, and the overall designs of the structure.
Staff recommends that if an applicant wishes to increase the second story FAR above
45%, then a discretionary staff level design revie~~T be incorporated into the process
with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would
be upheld, while maintaining the existing goals of symmetry, proportion and balance.
The Director of Co~sununity Development may grant approval to a second floor to
ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design principles and
tecluniques are met:
• Ensure_approUrate ardlitectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood
desi~~-n theme and character.
~ Add visual interest to the elevation with the use of architectural elements
(i.e., porches, bays, overhangs, trellises, moldings, trip, jvood sidungs,
brackets or metal work).
13-46
MCA-2008-03 = Rl ordinance
July 8, 2008
Pave 7
~' • Ensure appropriate building mass rind scale.
~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry
features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms.
~ Avoid eave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the
' adjacent houses.
~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass
of the house.
~ Keep second floor exterior ~vall heights as low as possible.
~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass
(i.e, wainscot, wood siding, belly bands).
~ Use visually heavy material; sparingly (balustrades or stone on second
floor).
~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with
architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest
(include but not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials,
balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves;
cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features
deemed appropriate).
~ Use landscape materials to Delp soften the appeara~.lce of bulk.
~ Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation.
• Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure (maintain
symmetry, t?roportion and balance
~ Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features.
~ Lute up architectural featurE~s and elements both vertically and
horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows).
The Director's decision inay be appealed i:o the Design Review Committee.
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner CC ,,
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~J;~s.~
Attachments
Exhibit A - Citywide postcard titled, "limited Review of the Single Family Residential
(R1) Ordinance".
Exhibit B - Draft Model Ordinance
Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos Design Guidelines
Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. "Note: City of
Cupertino Architectural Consultant, Larry Cannon, assisted in the development of the
Los Gatos Design Guidelu1es.
13-47
On May 13, 2008 the City Council initiated a limited review of the Single Family Residential (R1) Ordinance, regarding
the al{owed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current
R1 Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 45% of the first floor. TI~e revised ordinance ~+~il!
consider odtusfiing the aEia~red rcrfiio to 6!la~~ greater c~rchifiecturc~! diversity, buff r~~ii! riot consider increasing or
decreasing ttte totaE allowed building area on cn R1 Eor or c(Z®nging filte required second story setbacks. The total
allowed building area and the second story setback relationship to neighboring properties will not change. The
Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to receive public input and consider ordinance options on the
allowable ratio of the second story on the following date and time:
MCA-2008-03
Tuesday, July 8, 2008, cst 6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community Ha!!, 10350 Torre Avenue
The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's website at w~an~/.curJertino.ora/R1. For additional information
about this section of the ordinance you may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Department at (408) 777-
1356 or e-mail any comments to lesiiea~~cuoertino.ora. if you are unable to attend the public hearing, an online
webcast of the hearing is available at v/v/~~/.cupertino.ora/R1. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up
information regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the c~gertclc~ Es
subject to change, so you moy arcarat fo contc€cf tf~e ~FoRnfrrg Deparfinerrt prior fo ff~e rrteeFing date eo verity fhcrt Fhe
item is stiil art fhe csgertc0a.
13-48
-~ CITY OF C~ ~PERTINC' EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot co~7erage shall be~forty-five percent of the net
lot area. An additional five percent of lot cave:rage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios,
porches and other sinular features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside
(maximum) li-nut for square footage. The FAF: shall be used in conjunction «~ith the
residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining
«jhether the mass and scale of the project is compatible «=ith the surrounding y
neighborhood.
1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent.
2. The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the
existing or proposed first story floor sea, or seven hundred fifty square feet,
whichever is greater.
-, --
_ ~
_Z ~ L't7 .'J~ LJC __Si ?~.y:.. tl: ~1~~ .l ~~ ~ _1. C L _-1 - :1 ~ _ _ __
-~I - ~I :~ ire _ _I-.~t:%~~ - ~t. = r. _
~_~ -- - - :~ ~ ,_v_-_- -- - - -- - _ - _~~
- ;-
-,
_ ._- t
h . ~
13-49
_ ~ . Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top
of the roof-rafters, hat=e the mass and bulk of a two-story house and shall be counted as
floor area.
a. Lf the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area;
othent-ise, the area tt=ill count as first floor area.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of
Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following
items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. hTety construction shall not be disproportionately
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve
higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be a three-car ~t-ide driveway curb cut.
d. I~To more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of
garage area.
e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second stor}= tt'alls should be avoided since it can
increase the apparent mass of the second story.
f. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood
should be maintained.
g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned
with one another t=ertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
h. Porches are encouraged.
i. Living area should be closer to the street, tt~hile garages should be set back more.
j. All second story roofs should have at least none-foot of=erhang.
D. Setback-First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minmum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a
can-ed driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no
more than ttvo such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side b}= side. y
2. Side Yard. The combination of the ttt~o side }=ard setbacks shall be fifteen feet,
except that no side yard setback may be less than five feet.
a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-}=ard setback on the street side of the lot is
twelve feet. The other side }=ard setback shall be no less than five feet.
b. For interior lots in the R1-~ district, the side yard setbacks are five feet on both
sides.
c. For lots that have more than tttJo side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all
side yards between the front property line and the rear property line.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet.
a. ~7Jith a Minor Residential Pernut, subject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback
may be reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, the usable rear yard is not less than
ttvent}= times the lot width as measured from the front setback line.
13-50
4. Garage. The front face of a garage ire an R1 district shall be set hack a minimum
of twenty feet from a street property line.
a. For projects ~vith three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall
plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of t<vo feet from the wall plane of
the other two spaces.
E. Setback-Second Story.
1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except
that no second-story side setback may be les:~ than ten feet.
a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property
line.
b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property
line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling.
3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal. to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any
combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section.
F. Basements.
1. The number, size and volume of ligl~twells and basement windows and doors
shall be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation, except that in the case of a single:-story house with a basement, one light«~ell
maybe up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long.
2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall maybe located within a required setback
area, except as follows:
a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet;
b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet.
3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be
located immediately adjacent to the lightwel:i.2005 S-4
5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated
and/or reinforced with the most effective roct barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
G. Height.
1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R1 zone
shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other
appurtenances. .
2. Building Envelope (One Story). .
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures
and single-story sections of t<vo-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined
by:
1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line;
2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high Line
referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section.
b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a
gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of
seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet
with a Minor Residential Permit.
13-51
3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second
story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a
minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story
wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of four feet from the
first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to tlus
regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D.
4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet.
5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings
within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by
affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning district.
H. Second Story Decks. All new or expanded second story decks with views into
neighboring residential side or rear yards shall file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject
to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of
the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy
protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an
outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other
similar unenclosed features.
1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for
the principal dwelling.
2. The minimum side-yard setback shall be fifteen feet.
. 3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feet.
I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be
varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such
structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar
structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may
be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section
19.28.090.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1808 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord.
1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part),
1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
13-52
Exhibit C
City of Los Altos
Single-Family Residential
rl ~1S~2fLLV ~Zi'~J IILVI~L~all7V~~
New Homes
Rerr.~odels
73-53
-~-. - i ~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
These guidelines were developed after an extensive community-wide look at the values
and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them. The
purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to
establish a rigid set of guidelines. Instead, it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect,
developer and builder in planning and executing a successful design of new and
remodeled single-family dwellings. This handbook will also serve as a guide for the City
Council, Planning Commission and City staff in the design review process.
Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing
houses. This fact, along with stylistic and size issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer
homes as being very different from older houses.
The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to
discourage individual designs. Rather, they set forth the implementation of the findings
that must be made for design review applications, serve as a basis on which decision-
making bodies may base their design-review decisions, and assist in developing
consistency in the approval process from neighborhood to neighborhood across the city.
The primary purpose is to guide property owners toward successful solutions to their
needs and to maintain the existing positive physical qualities and character of the
residential neighborhoods of Los Altos.
These guidelines implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. They also identify
the findings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must 6e followed to gain approval
of a project. '
Los Altos requires design review on all residential construction. The majority of design
review is performed by Planning Department staff. Applications for two-story
construction or unusual architectural design are heard by the Architectural and Site
Control Committee (A&S), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The functions
of the A&5 Committee are delineated in the Los Altos Municipal Code.
From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to
the incorporation of the city in 1952. Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like
atmosphere. Thus, Los Altos developed with spacious quarter acre lots, minimal use of
curbs and gutters, extensive use of landscaping and large trees, openness of front yards to
the street, and the relatively low profile and height of residences. Prior to the City's
incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding communities;
thus, there are areas of town that have smaller lots, and the zoning regulations distinguish
between these smaller lots and larger lots in terms of setbacks, height, etc. These design
guidelines, however, apply to lots of all sizes.
13-54
Residential D Sion ('rn;riPlinPc
Although most of the housing stack was ~jeveloped during the 1950's and a predominant
style is the "ranch", there is a vast diversity of design and style within Los Altos. Today,
demands for housing are far different then they were at our incorporation. As a result,
housing styles and home size have changed dramatically. Whereas, earlier there was an
emphasis on "low profile", now there is a tend_ envy to "build out" a lot. Whereas, before
there was an emphasis on designing from. the exterior inward now there is a tendency to
design from the interior outward. At taxies this results in home designs that appear to
overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design.
To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower
height and to establish daylight planes anti floor area to lot area ratios. After working with
these new regulations fora period of time, it became evident that development standards
alone are not sufficient to address ~suc:h impacts as privacy invasion and change to
neighborhood character. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for
design review of all new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed
with the expectation that their use will encourage creativity that will result in a high level
of residential design quality.
It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for
excellence. For this reason, variation from these guidelines will be considered when
compensated by a related improvement which contributes to the excellence of the project.
To use these guidelines, please refer to the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the
Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains they intent of the guidelines as well as the design
review process. Chapter 3 presents inforniation on how designs is viewed in relation to the
design review process. Chapter 4 presents the basic philosophy of these guidelines and
provides general guidance in meeting the findings required for design approval. Chapter
5 explains procedures and includes the b~-sic "do's and don'ts" for design approval. There
are three appendices: Appendix A preser.~ts the goals and policies from the General Plan
that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a Glossary of Terms; and Appendix
C provides a basic primer on Architecttu•al Styles, and can assist you in identifying the
style of your home.
We wish you well on your project!
~3-55
4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES PHILOSOPHY
This chapter defines the philosophy of Los Altos with regard to how housing should
develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter is general in nature and reflects the
major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site planning, including the
relationship of your property to adjacent properties. The next chapter goes into greater
detail regarding the do's and don'ts for all new construction and remodels.
These guidelines were developed from the belief that there can be a balance between the
desires of the community to achieve neighborhood compatibility in house design and
individuals' rights to build their "dream home". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial
areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e.g, existing homes,
public streets, open spaces, privacy invasion, etc. These guidelines are not intended to
prescribe a specific style, nor to limit development to one story in height.
4.1 NEIGHBORI300D COMPATIBILITY
Before starting the design process, you should understand the character of your
neighborhood and the impact your project will have on the neighborhood. Not all
neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character. Often, the boundaries of a
neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural
features.
Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CC&R's
(Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CC&R's may contain restrictions on
height, size, setbacks, and other design issues. Review your title report to see if there are
any CC&R's that may apply to your project, Even though enforcement of CC&R's is a
private civil matter, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your
project follows all CC&R's. When the applicant indicates that a project deviates from the
CC&R's, the neighbors will be notified.
Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent,
diverse and transitional. Following is a discussion regarding each of these types of
neighborhoods. One of the considerations for a project is the compatibility it has within
the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will
not necessarily be denied. It may be that mitigation will be required in order for the
project to be approved.
CONSISTENT CHA1tACTER NEIGHBORHOODS:
These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape.
This does not mean that the homes are exactly alike, just that they share similar
13-56
characteristics of style, house type, setbacks, and streetscape character. l~iajor
renovation or new construction projects in these neighborhoods require more design
sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the
neighborhood character.
• In consistent character neighborhoods, good neighbor design has
design elements, material, and scale found within the neighborhood and sizes
that are not significantly larger than other homes in the neighborhood. The
emphasis should be on designs that "fit in" and lessen abrupt changes.
• APP~~aI of an inconsistent design will require mitigating design
measures to lessen the neighborhood impact iViitigation may include change in
size, increased setbacks, large trees or other landscape materials for screening and other
changes in design to reduce impacts. The; goal of mitigation is to soften the differences
between the new construction and the existing homes.
story entry ~ r~9e
~eaa/~ ~L11G , •,
Less Oasirable
Desira6lw
Consistent Character Neighborhood: Remodels & Additions
DIVERSE C~~C'TER NEIGHBORHCIODS:
In contrast, diverse character neighborhoo~js contain a variety of architectural styles and
may have a varying streetscape as well. Tlus can result from homes which were built in
different eras or by.individual homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in
transition.
13-57
consistent Setbacks
w~~ais-en[ r+eignts~Massing
s t r e e t
Diverse House Types & Setbacks
ridge height
._ _ eaves fir1~
m m '- ~ - -
mm
Ranch Bungalow Spanish
Diverse Styles and/or Sizes
• In a diverse character neighborhood, good neighbor design. has its
own design integrity while incorporating some design elements and materials
found in the neighborhood.
• Mitigation for items such as size and bulk may be used for some
designs depending on the relationship of a home to its neighbors.
T~NSTI'IONAL CIIAR~CTER NEIGHBORHOODS:
Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the process of changing their
character and identity. Major changes include two-story additions in a one-story
neighborhood, large homes in a neighborhood of small homes, and many upgraded
homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs.
• In a transitional character neighborhood, a good neighbor design
reduces the abrupt changes that result from juxtaposing radically different
designs or sizes of structures; proposed projects should not set the extreme and
should be designed to soften the transition. Significant deviations could be cause for
mitigation.
turret ~^;^~.
3 Car c}a.r~e. ta.U. chi.mttLyS rt~ ' ~'"J "'
tortes _ _„~eave lute
~ --- ,
Not Desirable Desirable
Transitional Character Neighborhood: Remodels & Additions
4.2 SITE PIAIITNING
Integration of your home with the site is an important aspect to good design. How our
home is sited on its lot in relation to your neighbors, the placement of the garage an~
ReGid ntial D Gigs GuidelineG 16
5.4 DESIGN TO MIlVINIIZE BULK
One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning
additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes
that stand out from the rest of the neighborhood.
Part of this perception is due to the size an~j mass of the house compared to the size of the
property. Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot
A home should be designed to fit the lot and surroundings and with internal design
integrity. Then, the elements you have chosen must lend themselves to reducing the
perception of bulk -
There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulk Some of these include:
• Use of more than one material. on an elevation is appropriate to
break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low
horizontal band of brick or stone with stu~~co or wood siding above can be appropriate.
However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must
achieve balance.
• Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches,
bays, overhangs, trellises) and detail (moldings, trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to
overdo, though.
• Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For
example, painting the triangle area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color)
lighter or darker below.
• Provide some variation in. large expanses of wall and roof planes.
For example, cantilever the second floor ov~:r the fu•st floor.
13-59
• Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A
change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this.
• In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce
bulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to
the complexity of the facade.
• Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would
include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc.
• Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story
designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or as a wainscot on an elevation.
• Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk.
This should not be a substitute for good design, however.
• Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible.
• Use roof forms that reduce bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum
number of hips and valleys).
• Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or
centered on a gable end when possible.
• Design the house from the "outside-in". Houses designed from the
"inside-out" rather than the reverse tend to look lumpy and lack a clear overall design.
This often adds to the perception of excessive bulk
• Lower the height of a iwo-story house below 27 feet maximum to
mitigate other design issues.
Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk
5.5 IANDSCAPING
Natural features, such as mature trees, rock outcroppings, and other landscape elements
should be retained; quite often they can serve as design inspiration.
• Designs should take
advantage of natural features found on
site. Natural features include mature trees
and other landscape materials (hedges, tall
shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks.
Design around existing landscape features
~~
~i. - 3;
~` `1!~ ,
--- T--° -._ _ ~ . __
~~~-~`;•
Exhibit D
P~z
{~-
Toivn of Los Gatos
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
? NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS
3 BUILDING DESIGN
4 HISTORIC RESOURCES
5 GLOSSARY
APPENDICES
Applicability .............................:.........................................5
Relationship to other plans ........... ......................................6
Purpose ....................................... ......................................6
Setting ........................................ ......................................7
Community Expectations ............. ....................................10
Historic Preservation .................... ....................................10
Ho~vto Read Your Neighborhood ....................................11
General Design Principles ............ ....................................11
Maximum Floor Area Ratio .......... ....................................12
Design Review Process ................. ....................................12
General Neighborhood Design Principles ........................13
Street Presence ...............................................................14
Form and Mass ......................:........................................15
Garages ..........................................................................18
Site Development .................................................:.........20
General Building Design Principles .................................. 21
Architectural St)ale ........................................................... 22
Height/Bulk/Scale ....................:...................................... 23
Garages .......................................................................... 25
Roofs .............................................................................. 27
Entries ............................................................................ 29
Wi ndo~vs ...........:............................................................ 3 0
Materials ......................................................................... 3 2
Additions/Accessory Buildings/Secondary Units ............... 33
Architectural Detail .........................................................34
Privacy and Solar Access ................................................. 35
Sustainable Design ..........................................................37
Application/Enforcement ................................................ 39
Historic Preservation ....................................................... 39
Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations.......... 41
Historic Districts .............................................................. 43
Building Classifications .................................................... 43
Demolitions ................................................................:... 43
Pre-1941 Strudures ........................................................ 46
Protected Exterior Elements ............................................ 46
Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ....................... 47
Additions and Outbuildings ............................................. 54
New Construction ........................................................... 55
Noncontributing Structures ............................................. 56
Definitions ...................................................................... 58
Appendix A
Ho~v to Read four Neighborhood \Norkbook
Appendix B
Historic Districts
Appendix C
Cellar Policy
Appendix D
Sustainable Design
Appendix E
Historic Resources Status Codes 13 - 62
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3
Town of Los Gatos
ACKNC-WLEDGMENTS -•
TOWN COUNCIL
Barbara Spector Mayor
DZil~e Wasserman Vice Iilayor
Steve Glid~nan
Diane McNutt
Joe Pirzynsld
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joanne Talesfore Chair
D. Michael Kane Vice Chair
john Bourgeois
Philip Miusche
Thomas O'Donnell
Stephen M. Rice
ATarico SaSoc
GENERAL PLAf~
John Bourgeois
Tom O'Donnell
Joanne Talesfore
Joe PirzS.nsld
Barbara Spector
Barbara Cardillo
Marcia Jensen
Jane Ogle
Margaret Smith
I COMMITTEE
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Plannr.•zzg Commission
Tow~z Council
Town Council
Community SezYrices Commission
PuGlic Re~resezztatzve
Pulzlr.•c Be~resezztative
Business Be~resentative
HISTORIC; PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Kendra Burch Chair
Len Pacheco Vice-Chair
Bob Cowan
Philip Micciche
Marko Sayoc
TOWN STAFF
GregLarscn Towzz112anager
Pamela Jacobs Assistant Town Manager
Orry Korb Town Attoz7ze~~
Bud Lort2 Community Development Director
Randy Tsuda Assistant Community Development Director
Sandy Baily Associate Planner
Laxry Cannon TowszArchitect /Cannon Design Groin
13-63
4 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
B~J[LDING DESIGN
Homes in I.os Gatos come in many forms, sines and architectural
st3=les. This diversits% is one of the features that contributes to the
Toa%n's unique identity Older Victorian St3=le homes, Spanish Eclec-
tic Sts=1e homes and new interpretations of Craftsman Style homes
often occupy the same street front. One-story Suburban Ranch
Sts-1e homes map occupy one street of a larger neighborhood while
newer tv,=o-story contemporary homes may occur around the corner
or don%n the street. ~sJlule this juxtaposition might seem harsh if
repeated in a new community, the large amounts of mature land-
scaping and the e~-olution of the Toa-n's neighborhoods over a long
period of time have alloy=ed the community% to comfortably absorb
this diversit5% of home sizes and styles. .
Perhaps more than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of
residents and the mutual respect of one neighbor for the next has
contributed to neighborhoods u%ith a great deal of visual unit5% and
similarity in scale. ~fi~hile architectural sts-les often var}= considerably
in any individual neighborhood, few homes stand out in marked
contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their surroundings.
The intent of these guidelines is to set forth some of the common
sense techniques that have been employed over the years to achieve
this strong sense of communit3~
3.1 GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The follo~z-ing principles have been used as touchstones for the
development of these design guidelines for home additions and
new houses. l:n the event that the specific guidelines do not clearly
address a given condition, these general principles, along v%ith the
Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc-
tion. The following principles a%ill be used by the Town staff and
Planning Commission/Town Council when evaluating projects, and
when considering .the acceptability of unique proposals that vary
from the specific guidelines.
^ 5elected architectural styles shall be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
^ Design features, proportions and details shall be con-
sistent v~=ith the architectural style selected.
^ Materials and design details shall be suitable to the
neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of
the house and any accessory structures.
^ Garages shall be subservient to entries and ground
floor living spaces.
^ The use of renew=able energy resources for heating,
cooling and lighting should be maX;,~r,;~ed.
® Projects should be designed to conserve energy and
water.
NEON HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED
TO THE SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD
~X~hile some larger nea% homes
map be acceptable in established
neighborhoods, they u=ill be e~-pected
to be designed to mitigate Their ~~isual
size and bulk. Three examples are
sho~x%n belo~~
^ 1Vlaterials should be used to reduce the consumption of .
13-64
nonrenewable resources and that improve air uality.
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 21
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the
surrounding neighborhood
• Sri les arith front facade ear=es at the first floor lei=el ~~ll be
easier to adapt to predominantly one story= neighborhoods
than stiles with ~=o story; unbroken front facades.
• Sr,=les with variations in the plane of the front facade u=all
may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods u=ith smaller
houses or ~-ith smaller building masses close to the street
• As-oid selecting an architectural style which t3~ically has
roof pitdzes that are substantially different from others in
thy: nearby neighborhood. '
3.2.2 Df~sign for architectural integrity
• In general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive arcli-
tectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements
or mi~:ing elements from different architectural st5,les.
• BLilding massing, roof pitches, materials, window t<pes
an~j proportions, design features (e.g., roof dormers), and
other architectural features should be consistent a7th the
traditions of the selected stile.
• Carry wall materials, window tipes and architectural details
around all sides of the house. A~ oil side and rear ele~~tions
th~.t are markedly different from the front eleiration.
De:~=elop floor plans fliat allow the location and size of
w-uidows to match the selected architectural sty=le. For ex-
ample, some sta=les emphasize the placement of ~zndo~=s
in a symmetrical relationship to the entr57
''
~ - - -_ -R----`
~~ ~~;` ~ -
_ - ~i~
Sorne architectural styles require simple
shapes and formal symmetry of the doors and
windows
13-65
22 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1.2008
Example of the poor selection of a large and
formal architectural style for the small scale
and informal st)~le neighborhood
This style would have been more compatible
~~~ith the neighborhood shown above
Continuation of front facade materials and
detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos
residence good design integrity
Town of Los Gatos
t
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.3 HEIGHT/BULK/SCALE
3.3.1 Develop the house plans and elevations together
• Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building
mass and roof forms.
• ~k~ork within the traditional forms of the archstectural sty=le
selected. Unless the architectural style selected clearly sup-
ports substantial complexity, generally keep building mass-
ing and roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional
architecture.
• Avoid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that
is not the norm for the neighborhood.
3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
• Two story houses map not be appropriate for every neigh-
borhood. For neighborhoods dominated by one story
homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one
story in height or to accommodate second floor space v7thin
the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style.
• ~~Uhen utilizing a cellar or extended foundation wall, avoid
setting the first floor height at an elevation above grade that
a=ould be significantly different than those of the adjacent
houses.
Cellar s are defined as an enclosed area that does nat exte~zd
more tha~z 4feetabove the existirzgorfz~zishedgrade, and are
zzot cou~zted in the Floor Az-ea Ratio calculations, by Tow~z
Councilpolicy. However, ifanypartofa cellarisabo~eg~ade,
it shall be considered in analyzi~zg the bulk and mass of the
stz•ucture, eve~z if it is ~zotirzcluded izz tI~eFAR. Die intentset
fortl~ in the Gene~alPlan is "to provide hidden square footage
in-lieu of visible mass."
In the spirit of that intent, applications with cellar space
will be carefully evaluated to ensure that substantial e~o~~s
have been made to reduce visible mass to e~zsure compatibility
with the site's immediate neighborhood. For text of the Cellar
Policy, see Appendix C.
Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines d7at are substantially
taller than the adjacent houses.
Give special attention to adapting to the height and massing
of adjacent homes. Avoid tall, unbroken front facades ~~=hen
other nearby homes have more articulated front facades
7th horizontal wall plane changes.
In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of
the floor area on the first floor aritli less area on the second
floor.
` ` _
~ ~' ~ - - .
ry
.3 , ,-~_
Some elevation of the fast floor level may
be acceptable and/or required in some
neighborhoods
13-66
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, ?008 23
Substantially elevated first floors like this may
not be acceptable in neighborhoods where
they do not currently exist
Ai=oid overly complex second floor plans and
roof shapes like this example
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
• Tape care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless
the architectural sty*le traditionally has the second floor front
wall at or near the first floor mall, set the second floor back
from the front facade a m;n;mum of 5 feet
• The design of t~~o story homes constructed adjacent to one
story houses should include techniques to min;m;>.e their
visual impact and provide transitions in scale.
Some techniques include:
- Step down to one story elements near the side set-
backs
- Prop-ide substantial side setbacks for the entire
house
- Provide substantial second floor side setbacks
- Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables
• Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g, towers or turrets)
that contrast vrith the neighborhood architectural forms.
• Avoid bay windoaTs and other features that compete arith
the entry as the home's focal point.
• Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to
the mass of the building An e~:cessive use of roof forms
is a common problem.
3.3.3 Provide visual relief for tvvo story walls
Some techniques include:
• Belly bands (see photo below left)
• Pop outs and bay azndows
• ?~Zaterial and color changes
• Chmneys
• ~~Tide overhangs with projecting brackets
• Juliet balconies (see photo below left)
• ~~vZdow bogies and pot shels-es
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
This Craftsman Style
house includes
several features to
mitigate the visual
height of the side
wal!
13-67
Residential Design Guidelines
24 Public Review Draft February 1.2008
Avoid too many building elements competing
for attention
Avoid too many roof forms that overly
complicate the design
Other t,vo story wall mitigation techniques
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.4 GARAGES
3.4.1 Limit the prominence of garages
Avoid designs that allow the garage to donvnate the street
facade.
• Limit the garage width to a maximum of 50 percent of the
total facade width.
• Set garages back from the front facade.
Limiting the width of garages and setting them
back from the front facade can minimize their
visual impact
• Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage
facade.
• Consider adding trellises with landscaping o~Ter garage doors
to soften their ~7sual appearance.
• Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that
de-emphasizes the garage doors.
-~ ~j=~~
_~~ - - - -
~ ~ _
- . ~.
~~ _ "~'
r t
~+~~. .~ ;
'~ - ~ - _~
,,,F
- -
-,~-
Divided garage opening with high quality wood doors and a
roof form tivith dormer integrated into the main house helps
minimize the visual impact of this garage 13 - ss
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 25
Avoid designs that allow the garage io
dominate the street facade (Ike this one does
Recess garage doors from the facade as much
as possible
Use windows and landscaped trellises over
garage doors to soften their appearance
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.4.2 IVlinimize the visual impact of larger garages
Three car garages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods.
~~ilhere larger garages are customary and appropriate, steps should
still be ta~en to min;m».e their ~risual impact on the house and
streetscap~.
S~~me techniques include:
• Using side loaded or split apart garages t~-here possible
• Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces (see
diagram on page 19) .
• Separating the garage doors
• Breaking up driveway pa~Zng with landscaping and/or
special pa~zng
3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with
appropriate details
• Windows in garage doors are encouraged.
• ~~ood doors are. encouraged.
• Use wood trim similar to the house windows
-r, .~ ~~ ~, ~~, z~
..~__-
~-:_:
iii z~ ¢ 4 4A~;
Avoid wide drive~~~ays, as shown above, in
favor of adding landscaping as below
_ ~_
-- - _!i~iilll>:I
~-
w.~
'- i I 13-69
26 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, ?008
Separating garages can reduce their visual
impacts in some cases
Utilizing individual doors helps to reduce the
visual impact of multi-car eara~es
Garage door ~~~indows and trim in this Los Gatos house are
closely related to the rest of the facade
Town of Los Gatos
BUDDING DESIGN
3
3.5 ROOFS
3.5.1 Unify roof pitches
• Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs.
• Roof slopes for porches may be lower than the primary
roof slope, depending on the architectural stjle.
• Dormer roof slopes may sometimes be steeper than die
primary roof slope, depending on the architectural sty=le.
3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity
• Avoid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple
roof gables. where roof eave variation is desired, consider
vertical wall extensions and dormer roofs, as shown in the
e~;ample beloaT
ty~~ _ - ~,
. __~~ ,:
~--- ~ r___~ _ ''
-~----
u- _ ~ , .
-:
,~.
~_ ~~ _ r
:° .
•K_ ~~~~~
This is a good example of roof eave variation
without excessive complexity
3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architectural style and
to the surrounding neighborhood
• Some architectural st5des (e.g., AZission and Spanish Eclectic)
often come in small and large overhang versions. In those
circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to die general
character of the surrounding homes.
~ 13-70
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 27
Most architectural styles maintain a uniformity
of roof pitch
Some architectural styles have a different roof
pitch for attached porches
BUILDING DESIGN
3
~.,
I I ~ ~
-- ~ ~ -~ ~~
Avoid large gable dormers that dominate the
roof
` ^~
~~~~~
• 1 -- _
n -. r -
In favor of smaller gable dormers
,..
k
I
~~ ~ ,~ .
r- "-7~
~ ~ r'
. _ ..__-..-.t-,~
i
Or use a shed dormer
Town of Los Gatos
3.5.4 Design dormers with aftention to the architectural
style and the neighborhood
• ~~~oid dormer sizes that are out of scale with the roof and
contrary to traditional designs.
• Cra.ble dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers,
should rarely exceed ~0 percent of the a~dth of the roof.
Shed dormers can be arider.
Tivo Los Gatos homes with well scaled
dormers appropriate to their architectural
sty!'s
13-71
28 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
BUI~.DING DESIGN
3
3.6 ENTRIES
3.6.1 Provide a clear expression of entry
• Orient the entry to the street front. It should be risible from
the street.
Pro.~7de a separate wall-way from the sidewalk to the entry if
that is the common pattern for adjacent and nearby homes.
Avoid using the drip>ea~ay as the u~alb-a~ay to the entry unless
that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases vThere the
driveway is used, consider the use of modular pacers or
decorative banding.
3.6.2 Design hone entries with sensitivity to the
architectural style
• Trost architectural styles ha~-e a distinctively unique entry
type. Avoid using an entry type that is not part of the st}•le.
For example, avoid using projecting entries, especially those
with an eave line higher than the first floor roof, for Ranch
Style houses or in Rands StS~le neighborhoods.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood
• Avoid large and formal entries unless that is the norm for
nearby houses. It is often best to start the design consid-
eration arith an entry t3Tpe (e.g., projecting or under eave
porch) that is similar to nearby homes.
• Houses on corner lots should consider using porches that
wrap around from the front to the side elevation, as shown
below This can assist in reducing the ~7sua1 height of taller
side v~alls, and in enlivening the side street frontage. .
HOME ENTRY TYPES COMMON IN
LOS GATOS
Projecting entry
Es p
~~
3.6.4 Entry details are encouraged
t
_ , ,}~, _ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
h
_i~
• Entry columns, railing, steps, and lights are just a few ele- _
merits that can be used to add individuality to a house.
- -- Inset entry'
-~`'_ ~ 13 - 72
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 29
Projecting porch
Entry under roof
eave -with or ' '
without porch ~ ~~~ #.
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.7 N~INDOWS
3.7.1 Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent
with the architectural style and surrounding
nE~ighborhood
• Mang architectural sty=les hat=e inditidual windows that are
grouped into patterns of two, three or more windows. Be
conscious of this fact, and organize the uindoa=s to comple-
ment the style.
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the
architectural style and to the surrounding
nE~ighborhood
• Select ~;~indow ts~pes to complement the stile of the house.
Each architectural style generally has one or two window
t3-yes that are traditional to the stile. Double hung windows,
for e~:an~ple, are common features of Victorian and Crafts-
. man Sts=les while casement windows are seen frequently in
I\~i.ssion and Spanish Eclectic styles.
Most architectural sty=les feature aindoaTs that hat=e either
vertical or square proportions. Avoid horizontal window
proportions unless the sty=le (e.g.,1\Sodern or Ranch Sty-1e)
is clearly supportive of that shape. Horizontal groupings
of~ vertical and square windows are one means of providing
z7sual balance to a facade design.
Limit the number of different w=indow types and propor-
tions to enhance the visual uniti of the house design.
For second floor additions to existing homes, matd~ the
Windows on the original first floor.
Match the size and shape of vindoty shutters to the shape
ar.d size of the uindoa~s. Shutters that are large enough to
corer the windows, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges
oii shutters to allow their closure are desirable. Avoid very
ns.rrow shutters that are clearly not wide enough to corer
the window opening.
3.7.3 Match window Enaterials to the architectural style
and to the surrounding neighborhood
• good a-indows are common in Los Gatos. good is still
the desired choice for sty=les that traditionally used a=ood.
However, today there are some window materials, such as
vinyl clad a=ood windows that are not noticeably different
from wood at a short distance. They map be used if their
visual appearance matches wood.
• Generally; avoid metal windows. They may be considered
acceptable for a Modern Sty=le house, but uTould be strongly
discouraged for all other styles. 13 - 73
30 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Group windows in a manner that is traditional
for the architectural style
Most architectural sty"!es have
vertically proportioned ~vindotvs
t~ndows with some depth from
the frame to the glass are desirable
Tosvn of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.7.4 Design the windows with attention to matching the
traditional details of the architectural style
DSost architectural sty=les -except Mission, Spanish Eclectic
or Modern -should have ~=ood trim around the w-indou=s.
The trim width should be matched to the st3=le, but in gen-
eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches wide. Head trim
depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, but
not less than one-sixth of the opening width.
• Projecting window= sills and heads are strongly encouraged
unless the architectural sty=lea=ould not normally have those
features.
• Wood true is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the
window frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the out-
side face of the a=all. The use of stucco covered foam trim
is strongly discouraged.
Divided lights (i.e., larger a~.ndovT panes broken up into
smaller pieces) are common in many home styles found in
Los Gatos. Use either vertical or square proportions for the
smaller w~indoty elements. Be consistent in the proportions
(.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension)
of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat grids to simu-
late di~~ded lights. Use eider true divided lights or one of
the newer window systems that have dimensional muntins
on both the exterior and interior of the glass along and a
spacer muntin beta=een the panes of glass. Use consistently
for windows on all sides of the house.
3.7.5 Special window shapes and styles should be used
sparingly
• Avoid Estate Home S~-Le windows (e.g., tall arched window,=s)
in neighborhoods where the homes are more modest and
informal in character.
Bay window=s should be designed add a base element to the
ground or a~di supporting brackets at the base. Sloped roofs
should be used and covered with a material that snatches
the roof material or with metal. Avoid using wall materials
beta=een the individual windows of the bay window unless
the window is large. GenerallS; bay windows look best a=hen
the windows are close together and separated by a=ood jambs
that match a=ood silts and heads as shown in the example
to the right.
and sat! trim _ ~ rnin_ trim
_= ~_~~ _ _
~,'~."
~~~
~ -
~_
.~:, -
Most architectural st)~les will be
complemented by ~o~ood trim at
the jambs, heads and sills
13-74
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 31
Use bay ~vindo~vs sparingly and
detail them as an integral part of
the design
BUILDING DESIGN
3
ARCHITECTURAL COPPER
The use of Architectural Copper is
generally discouraged because of its
potential to contribute pollurion to
surface ~z~aters and the San Francisco
Bay through urban runoff Industrial.,
municipal and some other users are
required to folio«~ regulations and
obtain pernuts for discharge under
the En~zronmental Protection ,~gen-
cy's National Pollutant Discharge
Eluivnation SS-stem (IvPDES) permit
program, wluch controls mater pollu-
tion by regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into ~~~aters of
the United States.
Although individual homes drat are
connected to a municipal system,
use a septic system, or do not have
a surface discharge do not need an
NPDES permit, the potential for
water contamination from copper
is of concern to all Bay Area com-
munities.
The major uses of arcltectural cop-
per in residential construction are
roofs, gutters, and copper-treated
composite shingles.
Town of Los Gatos
3.8 M;ATERlALS
3.8.1 Use high quality materials
• Use materials and mixes of materials that are consistent
ar:th the architectural st3%le selected.
• Traditional materials, such as ~~ood~and stone, are most
desirable, and strongly encouraged. Ho~Te~=er, the cost of
materials and labor for many building components have
led to the development of synthetic materials that are
often hard to tell from the authentic ones. If any of these
substitutes are selected, they must pass the test of looking
like the authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on
the first floor and 10 feet if used on the second floor.
• A, oid rough textured stucco in favor of a smooth sand
fvush.
• C~~mposition roof shingles may be acceptable in lieu of
wood shakes. However, shingles should be selected with
a texture that is similar to other houses in the neighbor-
hood.
3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding
nf~ighborhood
• One way of fitting a new house into an existing neighbor-
hood. -especially if the new house is bigger than many of
the others around it - is to use materials drawn from the
surrounding neighborhood. An all stucco house might
seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but
the predominant use of ~x~ood siding v,7th some elements
of stucco can often work. Where stone accents (e.g., chim-
neys) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at
the a-all base and elsewhere can assist in making the ne~~
home seem better connected to its surroundings.
• When using a mix of materials, avoid using too many materi-
al:~ -two or at most three are enough. Avoid an even split of
materials (i.e., SO/50)~on the facades. It is best to have one
material as the dominant surface a~th the second material
playing a lesser role. The use of a two-third to one-third
ratio is a good place to start
'5
32 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
2~3 stucGO 1f3 wood
Town of Los Gatos
t
BUILDWG DESIGN
3
3.8.3 Use traditional detailing
• Treat openings in walls as though they u=ere constructed of
the traditional material for the st3=1e. For example, be sure to
provide substantial a=all space abo~=e arches in stucco and
stone walls. Traditionally; wall space abo~=e the arch u=ould
' have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and
to make the space too small is inconsistent with the archi-
tectural style.
• Openings in walls faced urith stone, real or s3%nthedc, should
have defined lintels above the opening except in Atission or
Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels maybe stone, brick or u=ood
as suits the sty=le of the house.
• Treat synthetic materials as though they a=ere authentic.
For e~:ample, select synthetic stone patterns that place the
individual stones in a horizontal plane as they u=ould have
been in a load bearing masonry wall.
• Select roof materials that are consistent a=ith the traditional
architectural sty=le (e.g, avoid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts-
man Sts=le house.)
3.8.4 Materials changes
• Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather
than outside corners to,avoid a pasted on look.
~~ res
~,j Ap~~~-1 t~t6
1 sr c~[or
Change »t~b¢rials Nc! al
aRd colar~ ~t ou~Fd~
irtg5de comers c~rnyrs
3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/SECONDARY
UNITS
Follow the provisions set forth in Guideline 4.9 on
page 52.
i
1 `Y ~ - 4
~'~
t~ara~e style, farm, materials f
~'. ' and c#etails match primary hcause
_ ~ ~ ---- . .... -v
Additions, accessory buildings and secondary
units should match the form, architectural
st}~le, and details of the original house
13-76
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 33
Use stone or ~~~ood lintels over
openings in stone walls
BUILDWG DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.10 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
3.10.1 Porches and Entries
• Select columns thatare traditional to the architectural style
of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an ap-
propriate w=idth to height ratio for the sty=le. Eacept for a
very few sty-ley, the columns should have appropriate caps
a~ld bases a7th proportions typical of the style.
• Pro«de a well proportioned beans bets=een the column caps
acid the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like
a convincing structural member. It should be risible both
from inside and outside of the porch. A common problem
is to make this element of the porch too small or to face it
with a material (e.g., siding) that a=ould not carry the weight
abo~=e if it v,-ere structural. For most architectural styles,
molding and trim will di~7de the beam vertically into three
n-.ajor elements of varying height.
' Railings should generally be constructed of a=ood unless the
specific architectural stele allows for metal or stone. Pro«de
both top and bottom rails a7th the bottom rail raised above
tl-.e porch floor level.
' ~l_rtical balusters should be appropriate to the architectural
style. Some are quite supple while others may have special
sl•~apes.
._ ~ _
r ` ~ - - 'K
r _
, ~ ~ ~ :,tsp. - -
While others require much more refined
details
• Tike care in designing porch stairs. Thep generally should
match the porch floor (e.g., wood) or the sides=alk material
if other than concrete (e.~, brick).
1~'ot~ • All porches are eaperted to he usable and have a minimum depth of
G feet orpreferah~~ more.
3.10.2 Balconies
• A,-oid balconies that project more than 3 feet from the face
oi~ the building unless they are tS~ical of the architectural
st,=le.
• Pro~~ide supporting brackets or beams that are large enough
to clearly appear to provide structural support for the bal-
cony.
• Railings should be designed as discussed above for porch
railings. For longer railings, intermediate posts Frith caps
ar.d bases should be used to break the railing into smaller
in.rements.
3.10.3 Brackets
Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bay window=s
should be designed to extend to fascia/balcony edge/pro-
jectingbay front or slightly beyond. Avoid stub brackets that
do not appear substantial enough to support the element
~ 13-77
above.
34 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Porch beam example with good
depth and details
Some architectural styles suggest simple
columns and railings
Town of Los Gatos
3.10.4 Chimneys
t
BUILDING DESIGN
3
• Clvmneys should extend to ground level. Avoid cantilevers
above the ground.
• Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro-
priate to the architectural st}'le and to the scale of the house.
Avoid undersized chimneys that are too narrow and too loaT
Add clvmneys for gas fireplaces a=hen the architectural style
~=ould normally feature chimneys.
• Provide chunney caps that are interesting and appropriate
to the architectural style.
3.10.5 Roof flashing and vents
• Paint flashing and vents to match the color of the roof.
3.10.6 Skylights
• First, consider die use of roof dormers or clerestories
instead of skylights.
• Use flat profile sk-}=lights rather than domed models.
• Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof beacons or lan-
terns that are highly visible from the street or neighboring
properties.
3.11 PRIVACY AND SOLAR ACCESS
3.11.1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties
• Locate structures to inuuinize blocking sun access to li~=-
ing spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent
homes.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent
residences
• Window,=s should be placed to m;n;mi~.e hews into the living
spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes.
• When i~indows are needed and desired in side building walls,
d~ey should be modest in size and not directly opposite
windows on adjacent homes.
• ~~rliere possible, second floor uindo~~=s that might intrude
on adjacent property privacy should have sill heights above
eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce v=isual
e3-posure.
• Bay windows should be avoided on side v=alls ~=here they
v=ould intrude on adjacent residents' privac}t
• Second floor balconies and decks should be used onlywhen
they do not intrude on die privacy of adjacent neighbors.
'
r ExiStip~
hEew f~n+o
--- one story
~;;; sto homeName bocrse
Avoid second floor masses in locations that
would block sun access to adjacent homes
13-78
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, ?008 35
Avoid placing windows in locations that
would look into adjacent neighbors' windows
or active private }yard spaces
BUILDING DESIGN
3
i
~ ~ ~~ ~p° i
~7%
j ~'u'indvws I
j ~ i
i ¢ ~ II
I ~ ''~ \ '
.~'' ~
I
Place landscaping in the shaded areas shown
on the diagram above to mitigate privacy
intrusions on adjacent homes
Llse ~dezlduoas #ree
. to ~r~~ tva!!s tram
hot sors~mea sin
;:;;
=. -
F::_: -:,
-_
5'
Use landscaping to minimize energy usage
Town of Los Gatos
• As a general rule, balconies and decks that are more than
tv~o feet above grade should try to maintain a distance of
ten feet from side property lines and twenty feet from rear
property lines a=hen the adjacent use is single family resi-
dential.
• When allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to
tre prig=acy concerns of neighbors (e.g., balcony or deck
sides overlooking adjacent w=indows or actively used yard
sF~ace should be solid in form). Open railings should only
be: used a=here privacy concerns are minimal.
• L;indscaping may be used to nutigate privacy concerns
so long as the landscaping does not deny solar access to
liting spaces and actively used yard areas of neighboring
homes.
• L,indscaping used for privacy screening purposes, should be
of~ sufficient size and of an appropriate species to pro~7de
such privacy within a t~~o year time frame.
• Trees should be to=ent5=-four inch bow size.
• S; Grubs used to promote privacy should be fifteen gallon in
si<;e and sia feet minunum height at planting.
• A;; a general rule, privacy landscaping should be placed with
acone-of-vision defined by a thirty degree angle from the
side w~ndoa=jambs of second story windows.
3.11.3 Design and plan for energy efFiciency
D~:sign to minimize energy costs by selecting and locating
landscaping and windows to block hot sununer sun expo-
sure and allow= aTinter sun exposure.
3.11.4 Solar Panels
• Locate solar panels so that they are inconspicuous from the
public right-of-a~ay.
• Align solar panel faces w=ith that of the underlying roof
slope. Avoid panels with slopes that are different than that
of the roof.
• In~egrate the design of panels into the design of the roof.
A~ oid a tacked-on appearance.
3.11.5 Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors
• Ali exterior light futures should utilize shields to ensure
th:ct light is directed to the ground surface and does not
spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare when
seem from nearby homes.
• Decorative residential light futures should be chosen rather
than strictly utilitarian security= lighting futures.
13-79
36 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.12 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are impor-
tantissues to Los Gatos residents. Sustauzabilit5=refers to the use of
natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued availability
to future generations.
The Toa=n believes that historic preservation is the most sensitive
path to sustainability, but recognizes that this is not alw=ays possible,
and that an emphasis on green building can be an effective means of
promoting the conservation of natural resources.
The term green buildi~~g is often used to relate sustainability to
development Green building addresses a broad range of techniques
to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction
and over the lifetime of a home. These include des aanuig structures
to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that
reduce resource consumption and improve indoor ajr quality; and
taking maximum advantage of renewable energy resources.
The Green Building Strategies and Materials in Appendi_~ D
contain design strategies that ma .-imize the use of renewable energy
resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additional_strategies that
conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce
the consumption of nonrenea=able resources and improve air qual-
ity; and a list of various sources for "green building" information
and their a=eb sites.
~ 13-80
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 9G-014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELC-PMENT REPORT FORM
Agenda Date: May 13, 2008
Item Summary:
Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss this item, then note and file this report.
BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program
to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The
Council directed that the Planning Commission wrap up your work in September and present
the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. '
DISCUSSION:
The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor
ratio should be changed. The Commission is not authorized to evaluate changing second
story setbacks or other elements of the ordina~lce such as the overall floor area ratio. Council
members voiced concern that the 45 % second floor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages
hoineo~vners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large
enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that
the current formula results in a repetitive stylf~ of "wedding cake" architecture. For example a
"Victorian" or "Queen Anne" style of architecture is difficult to design with the current rule.
Staff anticipates that the Conunission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor
wall plane as this rule directly relates to the issue of potentially allowing the first and second
floor walls to align. The Coirunission swill need to assess if some alternate method of breaking
up the wall plane should be considered such pis awning or trellis elements. Finally, the
Coi7unission may need to consider alternate r~:view procedures for applicants taking
advantage of any amendments.
Staff will send out achy-wide mailer and attempt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene
and on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will
be ready for the Planting Commission in July 2008. In.the meantime staff will evaluate if this
change will potentially delay any other jvork program items.
,~ SubmifiEed by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
13-81
Exhibit B
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA-2008-03 Agenda Date: July 8, 2008
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: citywide '
Item Summary: Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio
requirements
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council adopt the R-1 Ordinance amendment regarding the
first floor to second floor ratio requirements
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission t~vork program to
include a limited review of the R-1 Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the
second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. first floor to
second floor ratio requirement. The Council directed the Planning Commission to
present recommendations on ordinance options to the City Council by October 2008.
The Council direction limited the amendment to only consider if the current second
floor to. first floor ratio should be adjusted. The Council directed that this review
would not consider changing the setback requirements or the allowable overall
building floor area ratio. The concern is that the 45% second story to first floor ratio
requirement inadvertently encourages homeowners to increase the size of the first
floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large enough to accommodate the
desired number of bedrooms. Also, the current second floor to ground floor ratio
results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture making it difficult to design
other traditional styles of architecture such as "Victorian" or "Queen Anne." The
following sections of the staff report will discussion ordinance options to adjust the
allowed second to ground floor ratio to allow greater architectural diversity.
A citywide postcard notice of the pubic hearing was mailed out to Cupertino residents
inviting them to participate in the discussion (see attached).
DISCUSSION
Existing Ordinance
The existing Rl Ordinance was updated in January 2005. One of the major changes
vas to increase the 2nd floor to ground floor ratio from 35% to 45%. The intent was to
allow enough space on the 2nd story to accommodate three bedrooms while controlling
the overall mass and scale. Since the 2005 ordinance amendment, very few pgtl~~c
MCA-2008-03 - R1 ordinance
July 8, 2008
Paae 2
concerns have been expressed about the allowable second floor building space.
Rather, there has been an increase of concerns regarding the limitation of architectural
flexibility due to the second floor to ground floor ratio.
Weddi~lg Cake Style of Architecture
The current 45% second story floor area r<<tio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style of
architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story homes
or additions in many neighborhoods. Altr~ough exterior design elements, such as
corbels, wainscoting, and window treatmE~nts, are provided to suggest an architectural
style, the overall "wedding cake" style is the same from house to house. The images
below are examples of the existing R1 Ordinance "wedding cake" style architecture:
Many residents attempt to personalize their home with design elements representing
traditional architecture, however the final result is greatly limited by the existing
second floor area restriction. This is es~~ecially the case on smaller lots under 6,000
square feet where the width of the lot is already restricts design options.
13-83
MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance
July 8, 2008
Page 3
Traditional Architecture
Traditional architecture, such as Victorian, Queen Anne, Farmhouse, Colonial Revival,
Italian Renaissance, typically have the majority of the second story walls aligned with
the ground floor walls. Second story walls may even cantilever over portions of the
ground floor wall to emphasize a certain architectural element or material change.
What is important to the traditional architectural is the attention and emphasis given
to quality architectural treatments and exterior embellishments to help visually
minimize what would otherwise be unarticulated walls or boxy forms.
The following are some .styles of architecture that may be difficult to design under the
current R1 Ordinance:
When Design Regulations Are Not Applied to Two-Stogy Homes
Two-story "box" forms can be articulated in a way that minimizes the mass. However,
unregulated two-story homes are often sterile in design and visually imposing.
Without design review, attempts to minimize the mass and scale (as seen in the
following image) may not always be appropriate, and may not always achieve the
intended goal.
13-84
MCA-2008-03-R1 ordinance
July 8, 2008
Page 4
Example Desig~t Guidelines From Other Communities
The neighboring communities of Los Gatos and Los Altos have accommodated greater
architectural variety, while meeting the c~~mmunity's privacy and compatibility needs
by requiring a higher level of architectural: integrity in their projects. Excessive mass of
a residence is not determined by the second story to first story FAR, but by the
perception that the size and mass of the house is too large for the size of the property.
The goal is to have the home designed to l=it the lot, and then apply elements that assist
in reducing the perception of bulk.
The City of Los Altos uzcludes the folloti~ing list of ways to reduce the perception of
bulk in their residential design guidelines. They are summarized below:
• Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to break up the
vertical mass of the house. SorYietimes an accent material such as a lo~v
horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood sidu1g.
• Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches, bays,
overhangs, trellises), and detail (molding, trim, brackets, etc.)
• Use color changes to help visuz~lly break up the elevation. For example,
painting the triangular area u1 a gable end one color and using a shade (or color)
lighter or darker below.
• Provide some variation in larger expanses of wall and roof planes. For
example, cantilever the second floo r over the first floor.
• Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A change of
direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this.
• In some cases, a simplification of shapes and materials will reduce bulk. For
example, too many different materials and changes u1 types of windows add
complexity of the facade.
• Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would include
two-story entry ways, turrets, ect.
• Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two story designs. Use
stone or brick as an accent material or Svaulscot on an elevation. ~ s - as
Example of aNon-Regulated Two-Story Residence.
MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance
July 8, 2008
Page 5
• Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk. This
should not be a substitute for good design however.
• Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible.
• Use roof forms that reduce bulk (lo~v to medium pitch, minimum number of
hips and valleys.
• Avoid massive, tall chimneys. Locate them either on an internal wall or
centered on a gable end when possible.
The following is some architectural tecluiiques used by Town of Los Gatos to provide
visual relief for two story walls:
• Horizontal belly bands
• Pop outs and bay windows
• Material and color changes
• Chirruleys
• Wide overhangs with projecting brackets
• Juliet balconies
~ Window boxes and pot shelves .
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
All or some of the above methods may be applied to a new or remodeled residence
(see images below).
_~
~ -.
MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance
July 8, 2008
Page 6
~.....
Recommended Ordi~zance Solution
Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or
decreasing the total allowed buildung axea on an R1 lot or changing the required
second story setbacks. The goal is tlu~ough appropriate design review and the
application of enhanced design principle;~, homes may ~be allowed to exceed the 45%
second floor area limit provided that that: they are designed appropriately for the lot,
the neighborhood, and the overall design of the structure.
Staff recommends that if an applicant wi:>hes to increase the second story FAR above
45%, then a discretionary staff level design review be incorporated into the process
with notification to the adjacent neighbors. Additional architectural principles would
be upheld, while maintaining the existing goals of symmetry, proportion and balance.
The Director of Community Development may grant approval to a second floor to
ground floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design principles and
techniques are met:
• Ensure appropriate architectural u _terest and compatibility with neighborhood
design theme and character.
~ Add visual interest to the elE~vation with the use of architectural elements
(i.e., porches, bays, overhangs, trellises, moldings, trim, wood sidings,
brackets or metal work).
13-87
MCA-2008-03 - Rl ordinance
July 8, 2008
Page 7
• Ensure appropriate building mass and scale.
~ Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g. towers, turrets and tall entry
features) that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms.
~ Avoid eave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the
adjacent houses.
~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass
of the house.
~ Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible.
~ Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass
(i.e, wainscot, wood siding, belly bands).
~ Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second
floor).
. ~ At least 25% of all two story wall planes should be treated with
architectural features to provide visual relief and architectural interest
(include but not be limited to stone, brick, alternative siding materials,
balconies, porch elements, long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves,
cantilever features, trellises, corbels, trims, metal work, other features
deemed appropriate).
~ Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk.
~ Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation.
• Design with architectural ulteerity on all sides of the structure (maintain
symmetryproportion and balance).
~ Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features.
~ Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and
horizontally (i.e., roofs or windows).
The Director's decision may be appealed to the Design Review Committee.
Prepared by: Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~'i-~~
Attachments
Exhibit A - Citywide postcard titled, "Limited Review of the Single Family Residential
(R 1) Ordinance".
Exhibit B - Draft Model Ordinance
Exhibit C - Highlights for the Los Altos Design Guidelines
Exhibit D - Highlights from the Los Gatos Design Guidelines. *Note: City of
Cupertino Architectural Consultant, Larry Cannon, assisted in the development of the
Los Gatos Design Guidelines.
13-88
On May 13, 2008 the City Council initiated a limited reviev/ of the Single Family Residential (Rl) Ordinance, regarding
the allowed ratio of second floor building area compared to the first floor building area Section 19.28.060. The current
Rl Ordinance limits the size of the second floor to no more than 45% of the first floor. The revised ordinance will
consider adjusting the allowed ratio to allow greater architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or
decreasing the total allowed building area on an R1 lot or changing the required second story setbacks. The total
allowed building area and the second story setback relationship to neighboring proaerties will not chanae The
Planning Commission is holding a public hearing to recE:ive public input and consider ordinance options on the
allowable ratio of the second story on the following date and time:
MCA-:!008-03
Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 6:45 p.m.
Cupertino Community {call, 10350 Torre Avenue
The current R1 Ordinance can be viewed on the City's website at v/ww.cugertino.ora/R1. For additional information
about this section of the ordinance you may contact Leslie Gross with the Cupertino Planning Department at (408) 777-
1356 or e-mail any comments to lesliea@cupertino.orq. If you are unable to attend the public hearing, an online
webcast of the hearing is available at www.cuoertino.or~. Also, please check the City's website for follow-up
information regarding the Planning Commission and City Council hearing schedules. Please note the agenda is
subject to change, so you may want to contact tF-e Planning Department prior to fhe meeting dafe to verify that the
item is still an the agenda.
13-89
CITY OF CUPERTINC' EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
1 Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage shall be~forty-five percent of the net
lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs, patios,
porches and other sinular features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective. of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside
(maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the
residential development standards and guidelines in this ordinance in determining
whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
1. The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot shall be forty-five percent.
2. .The maximum floor area of a second story shall be forty-five percent of the
existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet,
whichever is greater.
3. The Director of Communit~Development may grant approval to a second floor
to around floor ratio greater than 45% provided that the followings design
principles and techniques are met:
a. Ensure appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood
design theme and character.
i. Add visual interest to the elevation «-ith the use of architectural elements (i.e.,
porches, bays. overhangs. trellises, moldings, trim, wood sidings. brackets or
metal work).
b. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale.
i. Avoid monumental scaled formes (e.c. towers, turrets and tall entry features)
that contrast with the neighborhood architectural forms.
ii. Avoid eave lines and roof ridges that are substantially taller than the adjacent
houses.
iii. Use more than one material on an elevation to break up the vertical mass of
the house.
iv. Keep second floor exterior wall heights as low as possible.
v. Use more than one material on atl elevation to break up the vertical mass (i.e,
wainscot, wood siding. belly bands).
vi. Use visually heavy materials sparingly (balustrades or stone on second floor).
vii. At least 25% of all two stor wall planes should be treated with architectural
features to provide visual relief and architectural interest (include but not be
linuted to stone, brick, alternative siding materials, balconies, porch elements,
long roof eaves, window boxes, pot shelves, cantilever features, trellises,
corbels, trims, metal work. other features deemed appropriate).
viii. Use landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk.
ix. Use color chances to help visually break up the elevation.
c. Design with architectural intecrity on all sides of the structure (maintain
symmetry, proportion and balance).
i. Avoid overly complex architectural elements and/or roof features.
ii. Line up architectural features and elements both vertically and horizontally
(i.e., roofs or windows).
13-90
~. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top
of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk o:~ a two-story~house and shall be counted as
floor area.
a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area;
otherwise, the area will count as first floor area.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new two-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted single-family residential guidelines. The Director of
Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following
items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design shall be reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights;
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve
higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut.
d. No more than fifty percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of
garage area.
e. Long, unarticulated, exposed second story walls should be avoided since it can
increase the apparent mass of the second stot•y.
£ The current pattern of side setback artd garage orientation in the neighborhood
should be maintained.
g. When possible, doors, windows and architectural elements should be aligned
with one another vertically and horizontally ;end symmetrical in number, size and
placement.
h. Porches are encouraged.
i. Living area should be closer to the sU•eet, while garages should be set back more.
j. All second story roofs should have at least none-foot overhang.
D. Setback-First Story.
1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet; provided, that for a
cun~ed driveway the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet as long as there are no
more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the two side yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet,
except that no side yard setback-maybe less than five feet.
a. For a corner lot, the minimum side-yard setback on the street side of the lot is
twelve feet. The other side yard setback shall be no less than five feet.
b. For interior lots in the R1-5 district, ~:he side yard setbacks are five feet on both
sides.
c. For lots that have more than two side yards, the setback shall be consistent for all
side yards between the front property line an~i the rear property line.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet.
a. With a Minor Residential Permit, sut~ject to Section 19.28.090, the rear setback
maybe reduced to ten feet if, after the reduction, _the usable rear yard is not less than
twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line:
13-91
4. Garage. The front face of a garage in an R1 district shall be set back a minimum
of twenty feet from a street property line.
a. For projects with three-car garages oriented to the public right-of-way, the wall
plane of the third space shall be set back a minimum of two feet from the wall plane of
the other two spaces.
E. Setback-Second Story.
1. Front and Rear Yards. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet.
2. Side Yard. The combination of the side setbacks shall be twenty five feet, except
that no second-story side setback may be less than ten feet.
a. In the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property
line.
b. In the case of a corner lot, a minimum of twelve feet from a street side property
line and twenty feet from any rear property line of asingle-family dwelling.
3. Surcharge. A setback distance equal to ten feet shall be added in whole or in any
combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in this section.
F. Basements.
1. The number, size and volume of lightwells and basement windows and doors
shall be the minimum required by the Uniforni Building Code for egress, light and
ventilation, except that in the case of a single-story house with a basement, one lightwell
may be up to ten feet wide and up to ten feet long.
2. No part of a lightwell retaining wall maybe located within a required setback
area, except as follows:
a. The minimum side setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be five feet;
b. The minimum rear setback for a lightwell retaining wall shall be ten feet.
3. Lightwells that are visible from a public street shall be screened by landscaping.
4. Railings for lightwells shall be no higher than three feet in height and shall be
located immediately adjacent to the lightwe11.2005 S-4 -
5. The perimeter of the basement and all lightwell retaining walls shall be treated
and/or reinforced with the most effective root barrier measures, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
G. Height.
1. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an Rl zone
shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae or other
appurtenances. .
2. Building Envelope (One Story).
a. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single-story structures
and single-story sections of two-story structures must fit into a building envelope defined
by:
1. A ten-foot high vertical line from natural grade measured at the property line;
2. Atwenty-five-degree roof line angle projected inward at the ten-foot high line
referenced in subsection G(2)(a)(1) of this section.
b. Notwithstanding the building envelope in subsection G(2)(a) of this section, a
gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of
seventeen feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade, or up to twenty feet
with a Minor Residential Permit.
13-92
3. Second Story Wall Heights. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second
story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than six feet, and shall have a
minimum two-foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second story
wall. The overlap shall be structural and shat be offset a nunimum of four feet from the
first story exterior wall plane.
a. The Director of Community Development may approve an exception to this
regulation based on the findings in Section 19.28.110 D.
4. Entry Feature Height. The maximum entry feature height shall be fourteen feet.
5. Areas Restricted to One Story. The (~ity Council may prescribe that all buildings
within a designated area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen feet) by
affixing an i designation to the R1 zoning di;~trict.
H. Second Story Decks. A11 new or expanded second story decks with views into
neighboring residential side or rear yards sh~cll file for a Minor Residential Permit, subject
to Section 19.28.090, in order to protect the ]privacy of adjoining properties. The goal of
the permit requirement is not to require complete visual protection but to address privacy
protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an
outdoor deck. This section applies to second-story decks, patios, balconies, or any other
similar unenclosed features.
1. A second-story deck or patio may encroach three feet into the front setback for
the principal dwelling.
2. The minimum side-yard setback sha:~l be fifteen feet.
3. The minimum rear-yard setback shall be twenty feet.
I. Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be
varied for a structure utilized for passive or «ctive solar purposes, provided that no such
structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Any solar
structure that requires variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may
be allowed only upon issuance of a Minor Residential Permit subject to Section
19.28.090.
(Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1863, (part), 2000; Ord. 1860, § 1
(part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999: Ord. 1f~08 (part), 1999; Ord. 1799 § 1, 1998; Ord.
1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1635, (part), 1993; Ord. 1630, (part),
1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
13-93
Exhibit C
City of Los Altos
Ir'
~~ ~
~~ litiw
f~
;~ ~~ ~
~l'i 1
• ~ ~~ n~T ~~ ~~~
~ ~' I I I
st r e e t
bac:{ line,
Diverse House Types 8~ Setbacks
I
Single-Family Residential
NeW Homes
Remodels
13-94
~ Elements in Scale I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
These guidelines were developed after ari extensive community-wide look at the values
and expectations that neighborhoods have for the housing that surrounds them. The
purpose of this handbook is not meant to promote a specific type of design nor to
establish a rigid set of guidelines. Instead, it is meant to guide the homeowner, architect,
developer and builder in planning and executing a successful design of new and
remodeled single-family dwellings. This handbook will also serve as a guide for the City
Council, Planning Commission and City st~~ff in the design review process.
Often, newly built homes have more complex plan and building forms than existing
houses. This fact, along with stylistic and ;>ize issues, has reinforced perceptions of newer
homes as being very different from older houses.
The design policies and implementation techniques in this handbook are not meant to
discourage individual designs. Rather, thE;y set forth the implementation of the findings
that must be made for design review applications, serve as a basis on which decision-
making bodies may base their design-review decisions, and assist in developing
consistency in the approval process from neighborhood to neighborhood across the city.
The primary purpose is to guide property owners toward successful solutions to their
needs and to maintain the existing positive physical qualities and character of the
residential neighborhoods of Los Altos.
These guidelines implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. They also identify
the findings from the Los Altos Municipal Code which must be followed to gain approval
of a project.
Los Altos requires design review on all residential construction. The majority of design
review is performed by Planning Department staff. Applications for two-story
construction or unusual architectural de;~ign are heard by the Architectural and Site
Control Committee (A&S), a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The functions
of the A&S Committee are delineated in the: Los Altos Municipal Code.
From a historical perspective, the character of neighborhoods in Los Altos relates back to
the incorporation of the city in 1952. Decisions made at that time encouraged arural-like
atmosphere. Thus, Los Altos developed wiith spacious quarter acre lots, minimal use of
curbs and gutters, extensive use of landscaping and large trees, openness of front yards to
the street, and the relatively low profile send height of residences. Prior to the City's
incorporation, housing had developed more in continuity with surrounding communities;
thus, there are areas of town that have smaller lots, and the zoning regulations distinguish
between these smaller lots and larger lots vz terms of setbacks, height, etc. These design
guidelines, however, apply to lots of all sizes;.
13-95
13esidential Design Guidelines 2
Although most of the housing stock was developed during the 1950's and a predominant
style is the "ranch", there is a vast diversity of design and style within Los Altos. Today,
demands for housing are far different than they were at our incorporation. As a result,
housing styles and home size have changed dramatically. tiVhereas, earlier there was an
emphasis on "low profile", now there is a tendency to "build out" a lot Whereas, before
there was an emphasis on designing from the exterior inward now there is a tendency to
design from the interior outward. At times this results in home designs that appear to
overwhelm neighboring homes either in mass or complexity of design.
To monitor such changes, the City Council first amended the zoning regulations to lower
height and to establish daylight planes and floor area to lot area ratios. After working with
these new regulations for a period of time, it became evident that development standards
alone are not sufficient to address such impacts as privacy invasion and change to
neighborhood character. Thus, the next step involved the adoption of requirements for
design review of all new homes and remodels. These guidelines have been developed
with the expectation that their use will encourage creativity that will result in a high level
of residential design quality.
It is recognized that guidelines do not encompass the full range of possibilities for
excellence. For this reason, variation from these guidelines will be considered when
compensated by a related improvement which contributes to the excellence of the project.
To use these guidelines, please refer to the Table of Contents. Chapter 1 is the
Introduction, and Chapter 2 explains the intent of the guidelines as well as the design
review process. Chapter 3 presents information on how design is viewed in relation to the
design review process. Chapter 4 presents the basic philosophy of these guidelines and
provides general guidance in meeting the findings required for design approval. Chapter
5 explains procedures and includes the basic "do's and don'ts" for design approval. There
are three appendices: Appendix A presents the goals and policies from the General Plan
that are applicable to these guidelines; Appendix B is a Glossary of Terms; and Appendix
C provides a basic primer on Architectural Styles, and can assist you in identifying the
style of your home.
We wish you well on your project!
13-96
4.0 DESIGN GUIDF;LINES PHIIASOPHY
This chapter defines the philosophy of Los Altos with regard to how housing should
develop within our neighborhoods. This chapter is general in nature and reflects the
major concerns of neighborhood compatibility and site planning, including the
relationship of your property to adjacent pr~~perties. The next chapter goes into greater
detail regarding the do's and don'ts for all ne~v construction and remodels.
These guidelines were developed from the t~elief that there can be a balance between the
desires of the community to achieve neigl~iborhood compatibility in house design and
individuals' rights to build their "dream horrre". There is a need to be sensitive in crucial
areas that govern the relationship of a home to its surroundings, e.g, existing homes,
public streets, open spaces, privacy invasion, etc. These guidelines are not intended to
prescribe a specific style, nor to limit develoF~ment to one story in height.
4.1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILTIY
Before starting the design process, you should understand the character of your
neighborhood and the impact your proje~~t will have on the neighborhood. Not all
neighborhoods have clearly defined boundaries or character. Often, the boundaries of a
neighborhood are delineated by arterial streets, topography and other non-architectural
features.
Neighborhood character within a subdivision may be a result of private CC&R's
(Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions). These CC&R's may contain restrictions on
height, size, setbacks, and other design issuers. Review your title report to see if there are
any CC&R's that may apply to your project. Even though enforcement of CC&R's is a
private civil matter, you will need to acknowledge on your design application whether your
project follows all CC&R's. When the applic;int indicates that a project deviates from the
CC&R's, the neighbors will be notified.
Neighborhoods in our community fall into one of the following groups: consistent,
diverse and transitional. Following is a d:scussion regarding each of these types of
neighborhoods. One of the considerations f'or a project is the compatibility it has within
the neighborhood. A project determined to be inconsistent with the neighborhood will
not necessarily be denied. It may be that mitigation will be required in order for the
project to be approved.
CONSISTENT CHARACTER NEIGHBORHOODS:
These neighborhoods have a similar style and character to the homes and streetscape.
This does not mean that the homes are Exactly alike, just that they share similar
13-97
characteristics of style, house type, setbacks, and streetscape character. Major
renovation or new construction projects in these neighborhoods require more design
sensitivity to the neighborhood than other neighborhood types when they depart from the
neighborhood character.
• In consistent character neighborhoods, good neighbor design has
design elements, material, and scale found within the neighborhood and sizes
that are not significantly larger than other homes in the neighborhood. The
emphasis should be on designs that "fit in" and lessen abrupt changes.
• Approval of as inconsistent design will require mitigating design
measures to lessen the neighborhood impact iViitigation may include change in
size, increased setbacks, large trees or other landscape materials for screening and other
changes in design to reduce impacts. the goal of mitigation is to soften the differences
between the new construction and the existing homes.
story try ri.dgG h,ru
r~,~ <<,~
Less Desirable desirable
Consistent Character Neighborhood: Remodels ~ Additions
DIVERSE CHARACTER NEIGHBORHOODS:
In contrast, diverse character neighborhoods contain a variety of architectural styles and
may have a varying streetscape as well. This can result from homes which were built in
different eras or by individual homeowner/developers, or be a result of a neighborhood in
transition.
13-98
consistent Setbacks
~vnsistent rtetghts/Massing
i
1~
~_
s t r e e t back l inE:
Diverse House Types & Setbacks
r ~ height
-- _ eaaie iir~
mm " - ® -mm
Ranch Bungalow Spanish
Diverse Styles and/or Sizes
• Ia a diverse character neighborhood, good neighbor design has its
own design integrity while incorporating some design elements and materials
found in the neighborhood.
• Mitigation for items synch as size and bulk may be used for some
designs depending on the relationship of a home to its neighbors.
"IRANSTITONAL CHARACTER NEIGHBORHOODS:
Transitional character neighborhoods are those that are in the process of changing their
character and identity. Major changes. include two-story additions in a one-story
neighborhood, large homes in a neighborhood of small homes, and many upgraded
homes in a neighborhood of older, smaller designs.
• In a transitional chars;cter neighborhood, a good neighbor design
reduces the abrupt changes that re:;ult from juxtaposing radically different
designs or sizes of structures; proposed projects should not set the extreme and
should be designed to soften the transition. Significant deviations could be cause for
mitigation.
3 CSr'
turret ri~ ~
taU. chi.mttcy~
stonc _ _~ P.e.~ e lir>~
Not Desirable Desirable
Transitional Character Neighborhood: Remodels a Additions
4.2 SITE PIANNING
Integration of your home with the site is ar,; important aspect to good design. How your
home is sited on its lot in relation to your neighbors, the placement of the garage~r~c~9
Residential DeGi n yid lin s lfi
5.4 DESIGN TO MINIMIZE BULK
One of the biggest issues (other than privacy invasion) raised by residents concerning
additions or new homes is that they are too massive or bulky, which may result in homes
that stand out from the rest of the neighborhood.
Part of this perception is due to the size and mass of the house compared to the size of the
property. Usually, the perception is that the home is too big for the lot.
A home should be designed to fit the lot and surroundings and with internal design
integrity. Then, the elements you have chosen must lend themselves to reducing the
perception of bulk.
s~
r m
m~
m~
®i
..23?Ny 6r7ry ~_
2 SrdJ'tu~~~IIS
Most Impact
There are many ways to reduce the perception of bulk. Some of these include:
Use of more than one material on an elevation is appropriate to
break up the vertical mass of the house. Sometimes an accent material such as a low
horizontal band of brick or stone with stucco or wood siding above can be appropriate.
However, too many elements can add to the appearance of bulk; good design must
achieve balance.
• Soften the elevation with the use of architectural elements (porches,
bays, overhangs, trellises) and detail (moldings, trim, brackets, etc.). Be careful not to
overdo, though.
• Use color changes to help visually break up the elevation. For
example, painting the triangle area in a gable end one color and using a shade (or color)
lighter or darker below.
• Provide some variation in large expanses of wall and roof planes.
For example, cantilever the second floor over the first floor.
13 - 100
• Use horizontal elements to soften vertical ones in an elevation. A
change of direction in siding or adding moldings in stucco can achieve this.
• In some cases, a simplific.ition of shapes and materials will reduce
hulk. For example, too many different materials and changes in types of windows add to
the complexity of the facade.
• Minimize use of tall or two-story-high design elements. This would
include two-story entry ways, turrets, etc.
• Use visually heavy materials sparingly, particularly on two-story
designs. Use stone or brick as an accent material or as a wainscot on an elevation.
• Choose landscape materials to help soften the appearance of bulk.
This should not be a substitute for good de:~ign, however.
• Keep second floor exterior wall heights as Iow as possible.
• Use roof forms that red~ice bulk (low to medium pitch, minimum
number of hips and valleys).
• Avoid massive, tall chimnE~ys. Locate them either on an internal wall or
centered on a gable end when possible.
• Design the house from the "outside-in". Houses designed from the
"inside-out" rather than the reverse tend to look lumpy and lack a clear overall design.
This often adds to the perception of excessive bulk
• Lower the height of a two••story house below 27 feet maximum to
mitigate other design issues.
Keep in mind that overdoing anything can result in added bulk.
5.5 LANDSCAPING
Natural features, such as mature trees, rocl+; outcroppings, and other landscape elements
should be retained; quite often they can serve as design inspiration.
• Designs should take
advantage of natural features found on
site. Natural features include mature tree~~
and other landscape materials (hedges, tall
shrubs), rock outcroppings, and creeks.
Design around existing landscape teaturc-s
W'~'fM f ~ 4 !' - }mow
t~.F^ ~'
_ ~ f ~°~~ .:r.
Exhibit D
Town of Los Gatos
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION Applicability .......................................................................5
Relationship to other plans .................................................6
Purpose .............................................................................6
Setting ...............................................................................7
Community Expectations .................................................10
Historic Preservation ........................................................10
How to Read Your Neighborhood ....................................11
General Design Principles ................................................11
Maximum Floor Area Ratio ..............................................12
Design Review Process .....................................................12
2 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS ~ General Neighborhood Design Principles ........................13
Street Presence ...............................................................14
Form and Mass ...............................................................15
Garages ..........................................................................18
Site Development ...................................,.............:......... 20
3 BUILDING DESIGN General Building Design Principles .................................. 21
Architectural Style ...........................................................22
Height/Bulk/Scale ........................................................... 23
Garages ...............:.......................................................... 25
Roofs ..............................................................................27
Entries ............................................................................ 29
Windows ...........:............................................................ 30
Materials ......................................................................... 32
Additions/Accessory Buildings/Secondary Units ...............33
Architectural Detail ......................................................... 34
Privacy and Solar Access ................................................. 35
Sustainable Design .......................................................... 37
4 HISTORIC RESOURCES Application/Enforcement ................................................. 39
Historic Preservation ....................................................... 39
Approval Process for Historic Resource Alterations.......... 41
Historic Districts .............................................................. 43
Building Classifications .................................................... 43
Demolitions .................................................................... 43
Pre-1941 Structures ........................................................ 46
Protected Exterior Elements ............................................ 46
Restoration/Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ....................... 47
Additions and Outbuildings ............................................. 54
New Construction ........................................................... 55
Noncontributing Structures ............................................. 56
5 GLOSSARY Definitions ...................................................................... 58
APPENDICES Appendix A
How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook
Appendix B
Historic Districts
Appendix C
Cellar Policy
Appendix D
Sustainable Design
Appendix E
Historic Resources Status Codes
13 - 103
Residential Design Guidelines 3
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOWN COUNCIL
Barbara Spector Mayor
Mike ~X~asserman Vice 114ayor
Step*e Glickman
Diane McNutt '
Joe Pirzynski
PLANNING COMMISSION
Joanne Talesfore Chair
D. Michael Kane Vice Chair
John Bourgeois
Philip Micciche
Thomas O'Donnell
Stephen M. Rice
Marko Sayoc
GENERAL PLAf~
John Bourgeois
Tom O'Donnell
Joanne Talesfore
Joe Pirzynski
Barbara Spector
Barbara Cardillo
Marcia Jensen
Jane Ogle
Margaret Smith
I COMMITTEE
Planning Commission
Planning Consmission
Planni~ag Commission
Town Council
Town Council
Communi~~ Services Comnsission
Public Rtpresentatr'ne
Public Representative
Busi~zess Representative
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
Kendra Burch Chair
Len Pacheco Vice-Chair
Bob Cowan
Philip T'Iicciche
Marko Sayoc
TOWN STAFF
Greg Larson Town 11lanager
Pamela Jacobs Assistant Town Manager
Orry Korb TownAttorne~~
Bud Lortz C0171mt/11ZtJ' ~ Development Director
Randy Tsuda Assistant Comnrunitj~ Development Director
Sandy Baily Associate Planner
Larry Cannon Town Architect /Cannon Design Group
13 - 104
Residential Design Guidelines
4 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
BUILDING DESIGN
Homes in L.os Gatos come in many forms, sizes and :architectural
sty*les. This diversity is one of the features that contributes to the
Town's unique identity: Older Victorian Style homes, Spanish Eclec-
tic Style homes and new interpretations of Craftsman Stele homes
often occupy the same street front. One-story Suburban Ranch
Style homes may occupy one street of a larger neighborhood aThile
neu=er two-story contemporary homes may occur around the corner
or dourn the street. ~~Jlvle this juxtaposition might seem harsh if
repeated in a new community; the large amounts of rnature land-
scaping and the evolution of the Town's neighborhoods over a long
period of time hay=e allowed the community to comfor~_ably absorb
this diversity of home sizes and stSTles.
Perhaps snore than these mitigating factors, the self-restraint of
residents and the mutual respect of one neighbor for ,he nest has
contributed to neighborhoods with a great deal of ~risual unity and
similarit~~ in scale. ~~Jhile architectural styles often vary considerably
in any indi~ridual neighborhood, few homes stand out in marked
contrast to the predominant size and bulk of their scrroundings.
The intent of these guidelines is to set forth some of tze common
sense techniques that have been employed over the years to achieve
this strong sense of community:
3.1 GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The following principles have been used as touchstones for the
development of these design guidelines for home additions and
new houses. In the event that the specific guidelines do not clearly
address a given condition, these general principles, along «-ith the
Basic Design Principles on page 11 should be consulted for direc-
tion. The following principles will be used by the To~jn staff and
Planning Commission/Town Council when evaluating projects, and
when considering the acceptability of unique proposals that vary
from the specific guidelines.
^ Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
^ Design features, proportions and details shall be con-
sistent with the architectural style selected.
^ Materials and design details shall be suitable to the
neighborhood and consistently used on all sides of
the house and any accessory structures.
^ Garages shall be subservient to entries acid ground
floor living spaces.
^ The use of renewable energy resources for heating,
cooling and lighting should be maximized..
^ Projects should be designed to conserve energy and
water.
^ Materials should be used to reduce the constunption of
NEW HOMES SHOULD BE ADAPTED
TO THE SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD
~~Jhile some larger new homes
may be acceptable in established
neighborhoods, they will be expected
to be designed to mitigate their visual
size and bulk. Three examples are
shown below
nonrenewable resources and that improve :sir quality. I 13 - 105
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 21
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.2 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the
surrounding neighborhood
• StS~les with front facade eaves at the first floor level will be
easier to adapt to predominantly one story neighborhoods
than st5rles with taro story, unbroken front facades.
• StS~les v-ith variations in the plane of the front facade wall
may fit more comfortably in neighborhoods arith smaller
houses or arith smaller building masses close to the street.
• Avoid selecting an architectural style which typically has
roof pitches that are substantially different from others in
the nearby neighborhood.
3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• In general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive archi-
tectural st3~le rather than utilizing generic design elements
or mixing elements from different architectural styles.
• Building massing, roof pitches, materials, window types
and proportions, design features (e.g., roof dormers), and
other architectural features should be consistent with the
traditions of the selected style.
• Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details
around all sides of die house. Avoid side and rear elevations
that are markedly different from the front elevation.
• Develop floor plans that allow the location and size of
~~indou~s to match the selected architectural style. For ex-
ample, some st}~les emphasize the placement of windows
in a symmetrical relationship to the entry.
Some architectural styles require simple
shapes and formal symmetry of the doors and
windows
I ~ 13 - 106
Residential Design Guidelines
22 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
- Town of Los Gatos
Example of the poor selection of a large and
formal architectural style for the small scale
and informal style neighborhood
This style would have been more compatible
with the neighborhood shown above
Continuation of front facade materials and
detailing onto other walls gives this Los Gatos
residence good design integrity
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.3 HEIGHT/BULK/SCALE
3.3.1 Develop the house plans and elevations together
• Avoid compleb floor plans that require complicated building
mass and roof forms.
Work within the traditional forms of the archi~:ectural std=1e
selected. Unless the architectural sty=le selected. clearly sup-
ports substantial compleait5; generally keep building mass-
ing and roof forms simple as is the norm fcr traditional
architecture.
• Avoid comple?c second floor plans and roof forms if that
is not the norm for the neighborhood.
3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
Two story houses may not be appropriate for e~=ery neigh-
borhood. For neighborhoods dominated bj= one story
homes, an effort should be made to lunit the rouse to one
story in height or to accommodate second floor space w=ithin
the roof form as is common in the Craftsman St3=le.
When utilizing a cellar or extended foundation ~a=all, avoid.
setting the first floor height at an elevation abo~=e grade that
would be significantly different than those of the adjacent
houses.
Cellars are defined as an enclosed area that does not extend
more than 4feetabove the existi~zg orfinishedg,~ade, and are
~zot counted in tl~e Floor ~Irea Ratio calculations, by Town
Council policy. However, ifany pazt ofa cellar is abovegrade,
it shall be considered in analyzing the bulk an~~ mass of the
st,•ucture, eve~z if it is not included in tl~e FAR.:Il~e intent set
forth in the General Plan is to provide hidden squarefootage
in-lieu of visible mass."
In the spirit of that intent, applicatr'ons with cellar space
will be carefully evaluated to ensure that substantial e~forts
Dave been made to reduce visible mass to ensure e-ompatibility
with the site's inz~nediate neighborhood. For text of the Cellar
Policy, see~lppendix C.
Avoid eave lines and roof ridge lines that are substantially
taller than the adjacent houses.
Give special attention to adapting to the height end massing
of adjacent homes. Avoid tall, unbroken front f;~cades a=hen
other nearby homes have more articulated front facades
urith horizontal u=all plane changes.
In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of
the floor area on the first floor with less area on die second
floor. '~
-._.. t' -______ - __
---
~:
Some elevation of the first floor level may
be acceptable and/or required in some
neighborhoods
13 - 107
Residential Design Guidelines 23
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Avoid overly complex second floor plans and
roof shapes like this example
Substantially elevated first floors like this may
not be acceptable in neighborhoods where
they do not currently exist
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
• Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless
the architectural stsTle traditionally has the second floor front
vaall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor back
from the front facade a nunimum of 5 feet.
• The design of two story homes constructed adjacent to one
story houses should include tecluvques to rr,;n;mi7.e their
~~sual impact and provide transitions in scale.
Some techniques include:
- Step down to one story elements near the side set-
backs
- Provide substantial side setbacks for the entire
house
- Provide substantial second floor side setbacks
- Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables
• Avoid monumental scaled forms (e.g., towers or turrets)
that contrast arith the neighborhood architectural forms.
• Avoid bay w•indoa~s and other features that compete with
the entry as the home's focal point.
• Avoid the use of too many active building forms added to
the mass of the building. An e~:cessive use of roof forms
is a common problem.
acep overhang with brackets
. ~~ __
Material and pptor phange.
3.3.3 Provide visual relief for iwo story walls
Some techniques include:
• Belly bands (see photo below left)
• Pop outs and bay windows
• Material and color changes
• Chimneys
• ~~'ide overhangs with projecting brackets
• Juliet balconies (see photo belo«T left)
• ~fi~indow boles and pot shelves
• Landscaped trellises and lattices
This Craftsman Style
house includes
several features to
mitigate the visual
height of the side
wall
Masonry ahimrkey
Projecting vrinduw pop oat
I 13 - 108
Residential Design Guidelines
24 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Avoid too many building elements competing
for attention
Avoid too many roof forms that overly
complicate the design
Other two story wall mitigation techniques
Town of Los Gatos
t
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.4 GARAGES
3.4.1 Limit the prominence of garages
• Avoid designs that allow the garage to dominate the street
facade.
• Limit the garage width to a ma~imtun of 50 percent of the
total facade width.
• Set garages back from the front facade.
Limiting the width of garages and setting them
back from the front facade can minimize their
visual impact
• Recess garage doors as much as possible frorr: the garage
facade.
• Consider adding trellises with landscaping over garage doors
to soften their visual appearance.
• Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that
de-emphasizes the garage doors.
-~~ - ,
3~.~
-T.
~+` ei
t-~ ' ~ ~~
'~s ~,~-~,..
z,
:,? -.~_
~_
,, ~.
-~,_.
.~''-
~..
Divided garage opening with high quality wood doors and a
roof form with dormer integrated into the main house helps
minimize the visual impact of this garage 13 -109
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 25
Avoid designs that allow the garage to
dominate the street facade like this one does
Recess garage doors from the facade as much
as possible
Use windows and landscaped trellises over
garage doors to soften their appearance
' ~ Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.4.2 Minimize the visual impact of larger garages
Three car garages may not be appropriate in most neighborhoods.
~X~here larger garages are customary and appropriate, steps should
still be taken to minimize their ~7sua1 impact on the house and
streetscape.
Some techniques include:
• Using side loaded or split apart garages where possible
• Accommodating additional cars in tandem spaces (see
diagram on page 19)
• Separating the garage doors
• Breaking up driveway paving with landscaping and/or
special paving
3.4.3 Integrate garage doors into the design with
appropriate details
• ~~Uindo~vs in garage doors are encouraged.
• tfi~ood doors are encouraged.
• Use wood trim similar to the house windows
Utilizing individual doors helps to reduce the
visual impact of multi-car ~araees
' 13 - 110
Residential Design Guidelines
26 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Separating garages can reduce their visual
impacts in some cases
Avoid wide driveways, as shown above, in
favor of adding landscapine as below
Garage door windows and trim in this Los Gatos house are
closely related to the rest of the facade
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.5 ROOFS
3.5.1 Unify roof pitches
• Utilize the same slope for all primary roofs.
• Roof slopes for porches may be lower than the primary
roof slope, depending on the architectural stS~Le.
• Dormer roof slopes may sometimes be steei~er than the
primary roof slope, depending on the architectural style.
3.5.2 Avoid excessive roof form complexity
Avoid multiple floor plan pop outs that produce multiple
roof gables. Where roof eave variation is desired, consider
vertical wall extensions and dormer roofs, as shown in the
example below
3.5.3 Relate roof overhangs to the architectural style and
to the surrounding neighborhood
• Some architectural st3~les (e.g.,1\'Iission and Spanish Eclectic)
often come in small and large overhang versions. In those
circumstances, tailor the roof overhangs to the general
character of the surrounding homes.
I 13 - 111
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 2~
Most architectural styles maintain a uniformity
of roof pitch
Some architectural styles have a different roof
pitch for attached porches
This is a good example of roof eave variation
without excessive complexity
s .
BUILDING DESIGN
3
fi
Town of Los Gatos
3.5.4 Design dormers with attention to the architectural
style and the neighborhood
• A~roid dormer sizes that are out of scale with the roof and
contrary to traditional designs. ,
• Gable dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers,
should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof.
Shed dormers can be under.
I 13 - 112
Residential Design Guidelines
28 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Avoid large gable dormers that dominate the
roof
Tivo Los Gatos homes with well scaled
dormers appropriate to their architectural
styles
!n favor of smaller gable dormers
Or use a shed dormer
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.6 ENTRIES
3.6.1 Provide a clear expression of entry
• Orient the entry to the street front It should be risible from
the street.
Provide a separate walkway from the sidewalk to the entry if
that is the common pattern for adjacent and nearby homes.
Avoid using the driveway as the wall~-way to the entry unless
that is the norm for the neighborhood. In cases arhere the
driveway is used, consider the use of modular pavers or
decorative banding.
3.6.2 Design home entries with sensitivity to the
architectural style
• Most architectural styles have a distinctively unique entry
ts~pe. Avoid using an entry type that is not part of the stele.
For example, avoid using projecting entries, especially those
arith an eave line higher than the first floor roo:F, for Ranch
Sts*le houses or in Ranch StS~le neighborhoods.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood
• Avoid large and formal entries unless that is the norm for
nearby houses. It is often best to start the design consid-
eration with an entry type (e.g., projecting or under eave
porch) that is similar to nearby homes.
• Houses on corner lots should consider using F~orches that
wrap around from the front to the side elevation, as shown
below This can assist in reducing the ~~isual height of taller
side v,~alls, and in enlivening the side street frontage.
HOME ENTRY TYPES COMMON IN
LOS GATOS
__; -"'
r
_ _~ =` ~`
..~.~ I
Projecting entry
~'.
3.6.4
• Entry columns, railing, steps, and lights are just a few ele-
ments that can be used to add indi~riduality to a house.
-~ ~~~~ Inset entry
I 13 - 113
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 29
Projecting porch
Entry under roof
eave -with or ;-a
without porch .,~_ s.
Entry details are encouraged
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.7 W{NDOWS
3.7.1 Arrange windows in patterns and groupings consistent
with the architectural style and surrounding
neighborhood
• Many architectural sty>les have indi~ridual wrindowTs that are
grouped into patterns of two, three or more window=s. Be
conscious of this fact, and organize the windows to comple-
ment the style.
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the
architectural style and to the surrounding
neighborhood
• Select window= types to complement the style of the house.
Each architectural st5rle generally has one or tw=o w7ndow
types that are traditional to the style. Double hung window=s,
for e~:ample, are common features of Victorian and Crafts-
man Sts-les w=bile casement w=indows are seen frequently in
1\tission and Spanish Eclectic sts~les.
• Most architectural sti3rles feature windows that have either
vertical or square proportions. Avoid horizontal window
proportions unless the sty=le (e.g., Modern or Ranch St3Tle)
is clearly supportive of that shape. Horizontal groupings
of vertical and square windows are one means of providing
visual balance to a facade design.
• Limit the number of different window t5-pes and propor-
tions to enhance the visual unity of the house design.
• For second floor additions to e~:isting homes, match the
windows on the original first floor.
Match the size and shape of wrindo~v shutters to the shape
and size of the w--indoor=s. Shutters that are large enough to
cover the window=s, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges
on shutters to allow their closure are desirable. Avoid very
narrow shutters that are dearly not wide enough to cover
the window opening.
3.7.3 Match window materials to the architectural style
and to the surrounding neighborhood
• ~Xrood windows are common in Los Gatos. ~X~ood is still
the desired choice for styles that traditionally used w=ood.
How=ever, today there are some window materials, such as
~rinyl clad w=ood windows that are not noticeably different
from wood at a short distance. They may be used if their
visual appearance matches wood.
• Generall3; avoid metal windows. They may be considered
acceptable for a Modern Style house, but would be strongly
discouraged for all other st5rles. 13 -114
Residential Design Guidelines
30 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Group windows in a manner that is traditional
for the architectural style
Most architectural styles have
vertically proportioned windows
Windo-vs with some depth from
the frame to the glass are desirable
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.7.4 Design the windows with attention to matching the
traditional details of the architectural style
• Most architectural sty=les - except Mission, Spanish Eclectic
or Modern -should have a=ood trim around tree windov,=s.
The trim aridth should be matched to the sty=le, but in gen-
eral, should not be less than 3 1 /2 inches u=ide. Head trim
depth should be equal to or c=ider than the jamb casing, but
not less than one-sixth of the opening width.
• Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged
unless the architectural sty=le would not normally=have those
features.
• ~X~ood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the
window frames are recessed at least 6 inches fr~~m the out-
side face of the wall. The use of stucco covered foam trim
is strongly discouraged.
Di~tided lights (i.e., larger window panes broken up into
smaller pieces) are common in many home sty=les found in
Los Gatos. Use either vertical or square proportions for the
smaller window elements. Be consistent in the proportions
(i.e., the ratio of the horizontal to the vertical dimension)
of the smaller panes. Do not use snap in flat gr'.ds to simu-
late di~rided lights. Use either true di~rided lights or one of
the newer window systems that have dimensional muntins
on both the exterior and interior of the glass along with a
spacer muntin between the panes of glass. Use c:onsistendy
for windows on all sides of the house.
3.7.5 Special window shapes and styles should be used
sparingly
• Avoid Estate Ho»>e S~j~le w=indows (e.g., tall arched windov=s)
in neighborhoods a=here the homes are more Tnodest and
informal in character.
Bay windows should be designed with a base element to the
ground or ~;rith supporting brackets at the base. Sloped roofs
should be used and covered with a material trat matches
the roof material or urith metal. Avoid using w~.ll materials
beta=een the indi~ridual windows of the bay a=indo~v unless
the window is large. Generally; bay windows loot: best when
the windows are close together and separated by «~ood jambs
that match u=ood sills and heads as shown in t]~e example
to the right.
Projecting head 3'h inch
and sill trim ,min. trlm
- _~_
t . ~_
..',,~-.
x ~~t_
°~-- ~~~~
~s ~ ,~
~,.~
- :;
~~
Most architectural styles will be
complemented by wood trim at
the jambs, heads and sills
I 13 - 115
Residential Design Guidelines 31
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Use bay ~vindo~vs sparingly and
detail them as an integral part of
the design
BUILDING DESIGN
3
ARCHITECTURAL COPPER
The use of Architectural Copper is
generally discouraged because of its
potential to contribute pollution to
surface waters and the San Francisco
Bay through urban runoff. Industrial,
municipal and some other users are
required to follow regulations and
obtain permits for discharge under
the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program, which controls water pollu-
tion by regulating point sources that
discharge pollutants into waters of
the United States.
Although individual homes that are
connected to a municipal system,
use a septic system, or do not have
a surface discharge do not need an
NPDES permit, the potential for
water contamination from copper
is of concern to all Bay Area com-
munities.
The major uses of architectural cop-
per in residential construction are
roofs, gutters, and copper-treated
composite shingles.
Town of Los Gatos
3.8 MATERIALS
3.8.1 Use high quality materials
• Use materials and mixes of materials that are consistent
urith the architectural style selected.
• Traditional materials, such as wood and stone, are most
desirable, and strongly encouraged. Howes-er, the cost of
materials and labor for many building components have
led to the development of synthetic materials that are
often hard to tell from the authentic ones. If any of these
substitutes are selected, they must pass the test of looking
like the authentic material at a distance of 3 feet if used on
the first floor and 10 feet if used on the second floor.
Avoid rough textured stucco in favor of a smooth sand
finish.
Composition roof shingles may be acceptable in lieu of
wood shakes. However, shingles should be selected arith
a texture that is similar to other houses in the neighbor-
hood.
3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding
neighborhood
• One a~ay of fitting a new house into an existing neighbor-
hood -especially if the new house is bigger than many of
the others around it - is to use materials drawn from the
surrounding neighborhood. An all stucco house might
seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but
the predoninant use of wood siding urith some elements
of stucco can often vaork. Where stone accents (e.g., clim-
neys) are common in a neighborhood, the use of stone at
the wall base and elsewhere can assist in making the new
home seem better connected to its surroundings.
• When using a min: of materials, avoid using too many materi-
als -two or at most three are enough. Avoid an even split of
materials (i.e., 50/50) on the facades. It is best to have one
material as the doninant surface with the second material
playing a lesser role. The use of a two-third to one-third
ratio is a good place to start.
2/3 s#ucco 113 woad
vall surface waU surface
Srnail alone basQ 13 - 116
32 Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
t
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.8.3 Use traditional detailing
Treat openings in walls as though they mere cotlstructed of
the traditional material for the style. For eaamp.e, be sure to
provide substantial wall space above arches in. stucco and
stone walls. Traditionally, uTall space above the arch mould
have been necessary to structurally span the opening, and
to make the space too small is inconsistent wzih the archi-
tectural st~.le.
Openings in walls faced oath stone, real or synthetic, should
have defined lintels above the opening e~;cept ui I\tission or
Spanish Eclectic styles. Lintels maybe stone, brick or wood
as suits the style of the house.
Treat synthetic materials as though they were authentic.
For example, select synthetic stone patterns that place the
indi~adual stones in a horizontal plane as they aTould have
been in a load bearing masonry mall.
Select roof materials that are consistent oath the traditional
architectural style (e.g., avoid concrete roof tiles on a Crafts-
man StS~le house.)
3.8.4 Materials changes
Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather
than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look.
4- wsai~
trrsltle YES ~~
a~ika Et+o
a~rs~ ~a o io~r ~ OutsKfe
Change materials No! at
and oohs at outaFdr<
inside tamers anmers
3.9 ADDITIONS/ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/SE(~ONDARY
UNITS
Follow the provisions set forth in Guideliine 4.9 on
page 52.
r"
.!'.r
.~
. _ ,.
Garage starFe, form, materia}s -s
~;` .t and detaits match primary house
Additions, accessory buildings and secondary
units should match the form, architectural
style, and details of the original house
• I 13-117
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 33
Use stone or wood Lintels over
openings in stone walls
BUILDING DESIGN
3
Town of Los Gatos
3.10 ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
3.10.1 Porches and Entries
• Select columns that are traditional to the architectural style
of the house. Take care in selecting columns with an ap-
propriate aridth to height ratio for the sty=le. E~:cept for a
very few styles, the columns should have appropriate caps
and bases urith proportions typical of the sty=le.
• Pro~ride a well proportioned beam between the column caps
and the roof. Size and detail the beam so that it looks like
a conv=incing structural member. It should be risible both
from inside and outside of die porch. A common problem
is to make this element of the porch too small or to face it
with a material (e.g., siding) that would not carry the a=eight
above if it were structural. For most architectural std=les,
molding and trim will di~ride the beam vertically into three
major elements of varying height.
• Railings should generally be constructed of a=ood unless the
specific architectural stl=le allows for metal or stone. Provide
both top and bottom rails with the bottom rail raised above
the porch floor level.
• Vertical balusters should be appropriate to the architectural
sty=le. Some are quite simple while others may have special
shapes.
• Take care in designing porch stairs. They generally should
match the porch floor (e.g, wood) or the sidew=alk material
if other than concrete (e.g, brick).
1~'ote: All porches are ea~ected to be usable and Dave a vninamum depth of
6 feet orpreferab>~ more.
3.10.2 Balconies
• Avoid balconies that project more dean 3 feet from the face
of the building unless they are ty=pical of the architectural
sty=le.
• Pro~ride supporting brackets or beams that are large enough
to clearly appear to pro~ride structural support for the bal-
cony.
• Railings should be designed as discussed above for porch
railings. For longer railings, intermediate posts vdth caps
and bases should be used to break the railing into smaller
increments.
3.10.3 Brackets
Brackets at roof overhangs, balconies and bap windows
should be designed to extend to fascia/balcony edge/pro-
jectingbay front or slightly beyond. Avoid stub brackets that
do not appear substantial enough to support the element
~ above. 13 - 118
Residential Design Guidelines
34 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Porch beam example with good
depth and details
Some architectural styles suggest simple
columns and railings
While others require much more refined
details
Town of Los Gatos
BUILDING DESIGN
3-
3.10.4 Chimneys
• Chimneys should extend to ground level. Avoid cantilevers
above the ground.
• Chimney materials, size, shape and height should be appro-
priate to the architectural style and to the scale c f the house.
Avoid undersized chimneys that are too narrow and too low
Add chimneys for gas fireplaces when the architectural style
would normally feature chimneys.
• Provide chunney caps that are interesting and appropriate
to the architectural st3=le.
3.10.5 Roof flashing and vents
• Paint flashing and vents to match the color of the roof.
3.10.6 Skylights
• First, consider the use of roof dormers or clerestories
instead of skylights.
• Use flat profile skylights rather than domed models.
• Select glazing to avoid the feeling of roof bea~:ons or lan-
terns that are highly risible from the street or ~ieighboring
properties.
3.11 PRIVACY AND SOLAR ACCESS
3.11,1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties
• Locate structures to minimize blocking suri access to liv-
ing spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent
homes.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent
residences
• Windows should be placed to m;n;m;~e ~riews into the living
spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes.
• When windows are needed and desired in side bLUlding walls,
they should be modest in size and not directly opposite
~vindo~vs on adjacent homes.
• Where possible, second floor windows that might intrude
on adjacent property privacy should have sill heights above
eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce ~7sua1
exposure.
• Bay windows should be avoided on side «=alls where they
v,=ould intrude on adjacent residents' privac3:
• Second floor balconies and decks should be used only v=hen
they do not intrude on the privacy of adjacent neighbors.
Existing
Hew iwo orie story
"~;~ sta na'm`e house
.~''•._ f
Avoid second floor masses in locations that
would block sun access to adjacent homes
~ 13 - 119
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 35
Avoid placing windows in locations that
would look into adjacent neighbors' windows
or active private yard spaces
BUILDING DESIGN
3
l._._. _ ._._._. _.
-_~-~ ~ 30p i
~ ~ ~
~ Windows I
I
I .,.
~ ¢ I
i 1i ~
I
~ t
r~
Place landscaping in the shaded areas shown
on the diagram above to mitigate privacy
intrusions on adjacent homes
Use deciduous tree
to screen walls Pram
' hat surnmet sun
`'~~ _
Use landscaping to minimize energy usage
Town of Los Gatos
• As a general rule, balconies and decks that are more than
two feet above grade should try to maintain a distance of
ten feet from side property lines and to=enty feet from rear
property lines aThen the adjacent use is single family resi-
dential.
• ~'Jhen allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to
the privacy concerns of neighbors (e.g., balcon}> or deck
sides overlooking adjacent window>s or actively used yard
space should be solid in form). Open railings should only
be used a=here privacy concerns are minimal.
• Landscaping may be used to mitigate privacy concerns
so long as the landscaping does not deny solar access to
living spaces and actively used yard areas of neighboring
homes.
• Landscaping used for privacy screening purposes, should be
of sufficient size and of an appropriate species to provide
such privacy within a two year time frame.
• Trees should be to=enty-four inch box size.
• Shrubs used to promote privacy should be fifteen gallon in
size and six feet minimum height at planting.
• As a general rule, privacy landscaping should be placed with
a cone-of-~rision defined by a thirty degree angle from the
side window jambs of second story windows.
3.11.3 Design and plan for energy efficiency
• Design to minimi~.e energy costs by selecting and locating
landscaping and windows to block hot summer sun expo-
sure and allow winter sun exposure.
3.11.4 Solar Panels
• Locate solar panels so that they are inconspicuous from the
public right-of-u~a}r
• Align solar panel faces with that of the underlying roof
slope. Avoid panels vrith slopes that are different than that
of the roof.
• Integrate the design of panels into the design of the roof.
Avoid stacked-on appearance.
3.11.5 Minimize exterior lighting impacts on neighbors
• All exterior light fixtures should utilize shields to ensure
that light is directed to the ground surface and does not
spill light onto neighboring parcels or produce glare v>hen
seen from nearby homes.
• Decorative residential light fixtures should be chosen rather
than strictly utilitarian security lighting fixtures.
' 13 - 120
Residential Design Guidelines
36 Public Review Draft February 1, 2008
Town of Los Gatos
t
BUILDING DESIGN
3
3.12 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are impor-
tantissues to Los Gatos residents. Sustainabilit~= refers to the use of
natural resources in a manner that ensures their continued availability
to future generations.
The Tou=n believes that historic preser~=anon is the most sensitive
path to sustainability, but recognizes that this is not always possible,
and that an emphasis on green building can be an effecti~,=e means of
promoting the conser~=anon of natural resources.
The term green building is often used to relate sustainability to
development. Green building addresses a broad range of techniques
to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction
and over the lifetime of a home. These include designing structures
to be energy and water efficient, utilizing building materials that
reduce resource consumption and improve indoor air qualitl; and
taking ma~iunum advantage of renew=able energy resources.
The Green Building Strategies and Materials in Appendix D
contain design strategies that majimize the use of renev;=able energy
resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additional.strategies that
conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce
the consumption of nonrenewable resources and improve air qual-
it3; and a list of various sources for "green building" information
and their web sites.
i 13 - 121
Residential Design Guidelines
Public Review Draft February 1, 2008 3~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Agenda Date: May 13, 2008
Item Summary:
Discussion of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirements
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss this item, then note and file this report.
BACKGROUND:
On Tuesday May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program
to include a review of the R-1 Ordinance first floor to second floor ratio requirement. The
Council directed that the Plaruling Commission wrap up your work in September and present
the recommendation to the City Council in October 2008. '
DISCUSSION:
The Council direction limited the amendment to considering if the second floor to first floor
ratio should be changed. The Commission is not authorized to evaluate changing second
story setbacks or other elements of the ordinance such as the overall floor area ratio. Council
members voiced concern that the 45% second floor to first floor ratio inadvertently encourages
homeowners to increase the size of the first floor to ensure the second floor proportion is large
enough to accommodate the desired number of bedrooms. Also, concern was expressed that
the current formula results in a repetitive style of "wedding cake" architecture. For example a
"Victorian' or "Queen Anne" style of architecture is difficult to design with the current rule.
Staff anticipates that the Corrunission will need to address the amount of exposed second floor
wall plane as this rule directly relates to the issue of potentially allowing the first and second
floor walls to align. The Commission will need to assess if some alternate method of breaking
up the ~vall plane should be considered such as awning or trellis elements. Finally, the
Commission may need to consider alternate review procedures for applicants taking
advantage of any amendments.
Staff will send out acity-wide mailer and attempt to provide articles in the Cupertino Scene
and on the web site to keep the public informed of this review. Staff anticipates the item will
be ready for the Planning Commission in July 2008. In the meantime staff will evaluate if this
change will potentially delay any other work program items.
_ Submitted by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
13 - 122
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 September 9, 2008
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Concurred with Com. Brophy's position; anti said that since th FXf11~11t
Council commu ' ated this and it was communicated to app
business to reduce o hange the fee struchu~e. Howev ,she no .
the project would not be roved today had that not'~been agreed to; they would have required
less density, more open spa~c>~within the projecYitself, and more amenities. She agreed that it
should be passed onto the City Council. "
Com. Kaneda: ,~
• Said he also agreed with Com. Brophy, andtiad no further comment.
~ti
Com. Rose and Chair Millef:'
• Said they both agreed,with previous commer,.ts.
/~
Motion: Mo ' n~by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Ka~ a, to forward Application
M008-04 to the City Council without recommenion. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS
2. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance
City of Cupertino (Section 19.2.8.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second
Citywide Location floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The
Revised Ordinance will"consider adjusting the allowed ratio to
facilitate greater architectural diversity, but will not consider
increasing or decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot
or changing the required second story setbacks. Continued from the
August 26, 2008 7lanning Commission meeting. Tentative City
Council date: Not Scheduled.
Gary Chao, Senior Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
• On May 6, 2008, the City Council as part of their 2007-08 work program directed staff to look
at review of the R1 ordinance specifically :regarding the second floor to ground floor ratio.
The direction was to have the Planning Commission review and provide recommendations
back to the Council by Oct. 2008. In addition, as part of the process, staff will be introducing
one or two minor suggestions unrelated to thy; second floor ratio housekeeping items.
• On July 8, 2008 the Planning Commissicn reviewed the initial proposal from staff and
provided direction that a more focused ordinance framework should be provided that tailored
guidelines and principles applicable to tl~e city of Cupertino issues. In addition, the
" Commission wanted additional images and l~aphics more pertinent to the community and the
discussion whether the city architectural consultant Larry Cannon should also be involved in
this process. Staff has since communicated with Larry Cannon and entered into a preliminary
contract with him; he is prepared to go pending Commission's direction this evening.
• In July, there were some concerns raised by "the Commission. The first one was on the lack of
prescriptive nature"of the proposed new de;~ign review process. To clarify in response, the
intent from the City Council to go through this exercise to potentially change the ordinance"is
to facilitate design flexibility; and in order to accomplish that, you have to have more flexible
standards to achieve the flexibility of options to provide to applicants or homeowners or
architects in this case. Staff has since then added more specifics into the framework, tailoring
it to the Cupertino issues.
~ Concerns were raised that this might promote box style homes in Cupertino. Staff has
established precise objectives and intent inta this process so that when property owners and
13 - 123
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 September 9, 2008
architects wanting to go through this voluntary process, will understand what is in store and
what is expected of them, in particular architectural style needs to be identified and specific
visual relief measures shall be applied.
• Why create a new process; why not use the current process? For example the exception
process could entertain a project potentially having a second floor larger than the 45% rule, the
only comment regarding that is that the exception process does not currently have any specific
provisions that allow us to ensure visual release on large wall planes and such. The exception
process is also costly and intimidating to average homeowners and architects as well.
• What staff is proposing in terms of review framework: The applicability this new process we
are suggesting to you would cover any application as proposed to have a residential home, a
second floor larger than 45% of the ground floor area. We are not suggesting the overall FAR
of the site be amended or that the minimum setback requirements also be retained and
preserved as well. Those will not change as part of this proposal. In addition it is important to
note that the existing quite prescriptive process that you have now are still intact; any property
owner wishing to go through the current process and have no desire of wanting to propose a
house over 45% second floor, can go through the current process without having to deal with
the additional guidelines and objectives to cover. He reviewed briefly the comparative table
between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance, to give a sense of what is being
changed and what is not. The three areas to highlight are the second floor to ground floor
ratio; we are suggesting that be allowed to exceeded. Also in conjunction with that rule, we are
proposing that the second floor setback surcharge be exact for those who are going through
this process from our conversations with local architects; you cannot have one without the
other because homes are expected to be larger; setback surcharge would prohibit that from
happening. Therefore, in their suggestion to us that also should be lifted as well. In the change
there is a lot of design techniques that we are adding into the ordinance that will cover and
mask some of the potentially larger walls and blank walls with trellises, arbors and balconies.
• Lastly the second floor 50% exposed wall rule; we are suggesting that rule be redefined to
allow the use of the new architectural relief techniques, architectural features as a way to
address that rule or satisfy that 50% rule.
• Said there doing this because the existing Rl ordinance limits the design flexibility due to the
second story size restriction; as mentioned previously some of the second floor surcharge also•
is restricting as well, and it dictates what it is meant to be; what is meant to accomplish is to
make sure that the homes are wedding cake and are set back quite significantly and you can
see that from the example pix provided. Also what we are seeing is that this sort of
architecture is more predominant now in the neighborhoods and they are pretty much taking
over and the concern we are seeing is that is all we are going to get; we are not going to get
anything other than these until 10 or 20 years, and that is going to predominate the pattern,
styles, the community and that is a concern.
• Inadvertently, ground floors are being maximized to ensure that the applicant's homeowners
get the sufficient maximum allowed second floor because the ratio exists. The only way to
have a large second floor is to maximize your ground floor; everyone is stretching the
envelope to the max on the ground floor to accomplish that.
• The objective of the new process is to allow greater design flexibility, at the same time not
compromising good design; and also to address some of the known issues previously
mentioned and that Cupertino cares about. Those are usually articulation of walls, addressing
blank walls, embellishments, visual relief of mass and scale of second floor wall planes.
• The design principles previously mentioned; when an applicant comes forward wanting to go
through the voluntary process, the Director of Community Development may grant approval to
allow the proposal to exceed the 45% second floor ground floor ratio provided the seven
principles outlined on Page 2 of the staff report are met.
• He reviewed the visual relief techniques listed on Page 3 of the staff report.
13 - 124
Cupertino Planning Commission
September 9, 2008
Other related minor ordinance changes that the Planning Commission should consider is the
exception of the second floor 10 feet setbacl~: surcharge requirements and also the 50% second
floor wall exposure requirement.
Staff is bringing to you the more specific framework asking for directions and comments from
you if you feel comfortable with it, provide us with directions, give us the green light and we
will talk and communicate with the city architect and come back to you with a more precise
ordinance amendment language in addition with pictures, illustrations, to better help the public
understand some of the principles we are dis~;ussing.
Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to review the framework, give
feedback, or alternatively, if you feel comfortable with this approach, you can recommend it to
the City Council.
Com. Brophy:
• What is the difference between the current review process for two story homes and what the
process would be for those two story homes that would ask for a second floor greater than 45%
of the first floor.
Gary Chao:
• Staff is proposing that the process be the same timeline to make sure that it is not going to be a
deterrent for people to go through. However, the findings, guidelines and principles that we
use to review the two different applications would differ. The current process under the
current rule if you stay under 45% seco~id floor, as you know the ordinance is pretty
prescriptive. As long as the color is not out of whack with the neighborhood, most likely it is
an approval; that is what it is designed to do. It is the prescriptive nature in the Rl ordinance.
With this new voluntary process for people `wanting to exceed the 45%, what we are saying is,
that in exchange to allow people to have a larger second floor, we are suggesting additional
design principles which were outlined ah-eady earlier that are not covered by the current Rl
ordinance. That should be evaluated and considered and found to exist on the proposal in order
for the city to approve the application for them to exceed 45%.
Com. Brophy:
• When I look at the list of design principles, in theory shouldn't we be applying this currently
to any two-story home that goes through review; I'can't see the difference.
Steve Piasecki:
The intent of the existing rules was to be highly prescriptive and not have subjective review of
whether the materials are compatible with t:he architectural style that is being proposed; nor
necessarily whether the materials are of 1-igh quality or whether you followed the basic
principles of symmetry and balance, so you ~~ould have asymmetrical mixed up material house
and still get through with that prescriptive process. That is not to say that we don't work with
the applicants and point those things out to them and try to encourage them to incorporate
them, but we cannot require it; it is not part of the purview. This is now saying that with these
design principles, we are more concerned about symmetry, balance, consistency of materials,
and incorporating these other design features so we will exercise some more subjective review.
Com. Rose:
• Said she was looking at the design principles that would be the role of Steve Piasecki to
determine whether they have been met on each project. How is it defined what is considered a
high quality material?
13 - 125
Cupertino Planning Commission 7 September 9, 2008
Gary Chao:
• It is usually a combination of many different things; how the materials tie in with each other;
the compatibility of the material to the style of the home; sometimes people want to build a
Mediterranean style house or Spanish style house and a true Spanish style siding is usually
more smooth and hand troweled finish, higher quality than just sprayed on materials. It is
difficult to answer; it is not always defined by cost, but is more of an architectural theme that
has to be consistent.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the point was well taken that it needs to be defined better, either by example or some
other way of defming it so that it is not confusing to people. We know that if you are
proposing a Spanish style home, you probably don't want to use the metal faux Spanish roof
material, even though that might be lighter and cheaper. Staff would coach the applicant to
meet that part of the requirement that they would need to eliminate the T-111 siding or put in
different materials in keeping with the Spanish architecture. If they disagree, they could take it
to the Design Review Committee. He said relative to the design principles, it is the intent that
the applicant will reasonably comply with all seven design principles.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Asked how staff would address a request to build a house that has an overhang, where the
second story exceeds the ground floor level. Could you do this given what you are proposing;
and what would be the reduction on the back end of it; would you allow them to exceed 100%
in order to achieve that.
Gary Chao:
• The way the ordinance is proposed it doesn't have a maximum limitation, but is more design
driven. From talking to some architects, we were discussing ways to articulate second mass
and the idea was that you don't necessarily always have to recess and indent from the ground
floor. There is very nice, beautiful looking homes that have nice gable elements that project
out with corbels underneath, so there is a lot of opportunity and we are excited about this for
that reason, there are projections you can consider, overhangs that you can consider, that
would meet the intent of the ordinance and breaking up mass as opposed to setting things back.
• Said he had not thought of the second question in terms of reduction and tradeoff; again, it is
going to be like a package that we have to look at as a whole. The way the ordinance is being
proposed, you could potentially exceed that 100% ground floor to second floor ratio. You
could say as a Commission your recommendation is to stop at 100% or whatever other percent
you are comfortable with.
Chair Miller:
• Said that the new ordinance specifies that new buildings shall be in conformity or
compatibility with existing buildings on the street. How do you reconcile the attempt to bring
some more diversity into the neighborhood vs. our existing ordinance which says we want the
same thing on the street.
Gary Chao:
• We have people making that argument now with the current ordinance, somebody wants to
build a Mediterranean house in a Ranch or Spanish neighborhood and the way the ordinance
has been interpreted up to this point in terms of compatibility is not that house designs have to
exactly mimic or replicate the existing predominant style of the neighborhood, as long as the
material color massing scale respects the adjacent neighbors house. Basically that constitutes
13 - 126
Cupertino Planning Commission 8 September 9, 2008
• being compatible with the neighborhood. Ii: is a good thing to allow different flavors of style
homes in a neighborhood.
Chair Miller:
• Said there maybe an inconsistency with the existing wording of the ordinance.
Steve Piasecld:
• I think what staff is saying is that the problem you are describing, doesn't go away with this.
The fact that we are asking people when thc;y bring their building in, tell us what it is, tell us
what it is, what is this animal you are tryin€; to construct, and if it is Calif. Ranch fine, if it is
Craftsman fine. But your point is well taken, you are still going to get potentially the
argument that we don't have Craftsmen homes in the neighborhood, therefore what are you
doing building a Craftsman style. Staff's }point is that you need to be at least respectful of
mass and the materials utilized throughout th.e neighborhood, not completely ignore it.
• We try to be fairly flexible today, we will continue to try and be flexible, but it is a good point;
that conflict still goes on.
Chair Miller:
• Relative to the architectural style selected, it implies that there is another level of work that
staff is going to take on to inspect the derails of each house to make sure every detail is
consistent with the style.
Gary Chao:
• In concept yes, if a person wants to do a Craftsman style house, we don't want him to propose
an element, an entry feature that is from another style and doesn't jive with the design. What
we are saying is whatever style they decide: to go with, they should do the best they can to
ensure that all the features, embellishments, colors, materials, shape of the, roof, design of the
windows are consistent with that style, to make the house coherent and nice looking.
Chair Miller:
• Expressed concern that they may be getting into an area where there is way too much
interpretation on the part of staff in terms of ~,vhat an applicant can and cannot do.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said the Commission could suggest to the City Council that every one of these go to DRC and
have an open process where they can have that discussion.
Chair Miller:
• Referred to No. 7 of the design principles `5.he design shall reflect symmetry, proportion and
balance", and said that it was already in the: ordnance, and he was concerned with that. He
illustrated a book by Dahlen Group, a renowned architect who shows lots of good and tasteful
examples of symmetry and asymmetry. Saicl he always had a problem with the issue of lining
up all the doors and windows as it doesn't ahvays make good architectural design to do that.
Steve Piaseclci:
• We have heard both sides of that argument acid maybe we could defer to some of the architects
to talk about; and we intend to see this in other design guidelines, that in balance; that we
would like people to think about achieving a degree of symmetry. The asymmetry you tend to
see in homes that can be tasteful, is usually :not a very dominant asymmetry; it is not a heavy
reliance on it. .
13-127
Cupertino Planning Commission 9 September 9, 2008
~ You could take No. 7 and say as a rule that you shouldn't strive for this, that some variations
are acceptable, but they need to be done tastefully.
Com. Kaneda:
• This modification only applies when people are proposing to go over 45% on the second floor.
(Staff Yes; if they exceed the 45% ratio) If they stay under, it is the current rule. I would
suggest we think about is if we are going to do this, let's do it or not do it; not write this
arbitrary. You get to some arbitrary number and then we are going to make the houses look
nice and otherwise they don't look so good.
• Said he agreed about the language regarding being consistent with the neighborhood and the
language .that talks about architectural diversity; and said it was confusing to him personally,
and also to the community, because so many times people come to the Commission and play
the "not consistent with the neighborhood card" as a reason why a house should not get built.
• In most cases I like diversity; it is nice to have some diversity and if you are just looking for
good architecture and consistent massing and materials, why don't we just say we are looking
for good architecture consistent massing and materials, rather than say it has ~ to match the
neighborhood.
Com. Brophy:
• Said since the last public hearing on the item, he has been struggling with the issue that Vice
Chair Giefer raised, which was more the social dynamics of how this would be applied; that
there is already a perception in the community that the process by which either the staff,
Commission or Council goes through in making decisions, has an arbitrary or unreasonable
procedure; and here where we are dealing with the whole situation of review by its very
definition, there is a certain amount of that the process is a subjective and judgmental kind of
process; and I am wondering whether or not by opening this up in this direction if the irritation
from either would-be home builders or neighbors of the project would be greater than
whatever aesthetic benefits that we would gain from this process.
Gary Chao:
• You could ask some of the architects in the audience for their feedback. Most of the architects
I have worked with have no complaints; they are pleased with the process. Having said that,
the key is that this is a voluntary process; however, the way the current ordinance is
established now, it is working; people are used to it. For those who do feel up to the
challenge of wanting to go through this more of a creative process, they can still opt to build
under the current rule and go through a more prescriptive nature and get their building floor
plan approved.
• For the architects who are usually looking to do good designs, they look at these rules; these
are some of the things that they would do usually regardless of whether there is provision for it
or not. However, the feeling is that they are limited because of the way the can ent ordinance
is set up. For those who want to do something creative and out of the box, they don't have the
tools or mechanism to do that. This process allows for that, and at least from my conversations
with some of the architects that do a lot of work, they feel comfortable with these rules
because they are fairly basic.
Com. Brophy:
• The would-be builder of the home has the option to opt into these rules; neighbors who might
oppose the project don't have that option.
13 - 128
Cupertino Planning Commission 10 September 9, 2008
Vice Chair Giefer:
In areas of the city where you have smaller lots such as Rancho Rinconada, have we
thoroughly thought this out on the 5,000 ;square foot lots, where I can build 100% of the
second story but the lot size is so small that it still may be difficult for me not to have a house
that is too massive or out of scale with the neighborhood.
When people talk about neighborhood com~~atibility, what it boils down to is mass and scale
and if you are on a small lot, I can see areas where that may be problematic. Where someone
is on a corner facing another street, what is what is interpreted as their side yard setback
(Garden Gate); their privacy may be intem~pted by an adjacent property looking down upon
them. How do we make sure that the programs still work and that the massing and scale is not
overwhelming for small lots in particular.
Gary Chao:
• Many property owners having lots under E;,000 square feet that are less than 50 feet wide;
have a difficult time meeting the current rule and after applying all the articulation rule, the
setback, you end up with literally a hallway on the second floor. There are arguments both
ways. You could stipulate that there may b~~ some special consideration for lots under 6,000
square feet or Rl-5 areas; there may be some special provisions to get at what you are talking
about, ensuring that the mass is not excessive;.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said if you have a 5,000 square foot lot, 50 ley 100, the 45% overall floor area ratio limits you
to a 2,250 square feet home. Already you have a smaller house. The setback requirements of
10 and 15 on the side yards force that house into the center of the lot as they would on a larger
lot. You are getting 1125 square feet, let's say you want 100% on the ground floor and on the
second floor. You have the setbacks of 11) and 15, you are at 1125, you have to provide
adornments and trellises or something to break up that building mass. Proportionally
everything stays about the same and it doesn't really matter; you can argue that the position of
the setbacks doesn't change as you get smali~er. You have a greater obligation in terms of the
relative size of your lot compared to a 10,000 square foot lot.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Said that was the argument made when they changed the R1 FAR to 45 feet, that it was
scalable; but on smaller lots just because you. are so much closer to your neighbors than on the
larger lot, it is more problematic having 45% coverage.
Steve Piasecki:
• You could opt for some kind of scaling, although the Council said do not look at the FAR so
you can still say we think it should be scaled. I think you are getting at that, because of the
setback requirements and the FAR, it gets sealed down anyway. It may be more problematic
for somebody who has an extraordinarily n~~rrow lot, to accommodate the 10 and 15, if you
have a 35 foot wide lot or 40 foot wide lot; you can start to see how those eat into your
developable area.
• If you want to when we come back, we can try to find examples of the 5,000 square foot lots
and show you how that might look.
Com. Rose:
• The way this has been approached, it sounds like everyone is coming to Planning saying I
want to build a Craftsman house but I can't, so I am going to build a wedding cake
Mediterranean. Is that is what is happening? You are getting a lot of frustrated people because
the design they want, which like these pic~i.~res, they are beautiful homes, that people are
13-129
Cupertino Planning Commission 11 September 9, 2008
coming in with .that vision and when they look at going through the exception process and the
cost of that, they are backing up and saying they are actually fine doing the tier.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said his impression is that it isn't that so much; people aren't saying they want to build Frank
Lloyd Wright Craftsman and you are making them build Mediterranean wedding cake. More
likely what is happening is, they want to put a little gable end on their house and cannot do it;
or the requests coming in are fairly minor things that are prohibited by our ordinances; they
don't have any flexibility at all, so they end up with the wedding cake because everything
pushes them to be uniform.
Com. Rose:
• I am going on the assumption of what I see primarily here that comes to us as well as what I
see driving in our neighborhoods, is that it seems to be that the Mediterranean style is
predominantly what people want to build when they build in Cupertino, so my question would
be, is a gable considered consistent with the architectural style of a Mediterranean home?
Steve Piasecld: .
• Said that Page 2-8 shows a Mediterranean or Spanish home with a gable. He said the
ordinance was designed to please the neighbor.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: ,
• Requested that all speakers given the same amount of speaker time, whether a resident or an
architect. Said that the method of giving some speakers extra time was highly unusual and
requested that the speaker time be timed.
• Illustrated an article from S.F. Gate, about a community in Manteca and what happens to the
community with 100% buildout on the second story. She presented photos which showed the
articulation in the front area of the homes; the side walls are 100% buildout with no
articulation; and the two-story rear of the homes have no adornment. In a different
neighborhood, she homes where they did the fronts, but not the other three sides. The size of
the homes and the fact that every developer who came into my neighborhood cut down every
street tree. We have boxy big square homes all over my neighborhood, they are all over
Monta Vista, a lot of them in Garden Gate. Cupertino itself was hit with this.
• Said that she felt the city was a heartbeat away from monster homes. It is going to become
neighbor to neighbor as it was in the pre-90s and in 2000 when Cupertino adopted a new
building code that reduced the size of the homes. She said six months from now there will
likely be the desire to go to 35 feet again and to have the homes that are buildable on the lots,
where currently a 5,500 square foot lot can take 2,400 square feet.
• Many people were relieved when they annexed into the city because there were protective
building codes; that is why we had the choice of coming into Cupertino. We are on the road
now to having each one of these thrown down and I think that if we go down this road we need
to have an ordinance for lots less than 6,000 square feet to have a special zoning area where
you cannot have over 45% or whatever the City Council has decided. 45% is still what the
City Council has decided until otherwise changed.
• Said she lived through the experience for 5 to 8 years with the battles of annexation; they
would be opening a Pandora'a box and it would happen all the way across the city.
• Eight years and nobody believed building codes could change; Rl is being torn down. When
they went through this two years ago, some of the developers said you couldn't get three
bedrooms in 600 square feet on the second story; some people in Rancho Rinconada put four
13 - 130
Cupertino Planning Commission 12 September 9, 2008
bedrooms in 600 square feet.
Two years ago the second story quota was increased to 800 square feet; architects still claim
today that you cannot put three bedrooms ir.~ 800 square feet. There are two plans recently in
my neighborhood, one across the street, and they have three bedrooms, a massive master suite
and two other bedrooms, full baths; it can be: done. What we decide here is going to affect all
of Cupertino; but it is also going to be devastation for Rancho Rinconada. Those examples
shown earlier by staff look like gorillas in tutus; I wouldn't want any of those homes next to
me. We have a lot of boxy structures in Rancho Rinconada; they are too high, too big; now the
trees have grown up, you cannot really see them; there is nice people who live there, but I
wouldn't want my neighbors to build anything that exceeded 45% near me; I think there are
people in Cupertino who don't realize; was (:reaton notified?
She said they had not received citywide notification on the project in nearly a month or two;
and it should be heavily noticed before it goes to the City Council. The City Council should
not take their final vote in October; it is too far encompassing; getting rid of the second story
surcharge. She recalled the first time that w~is applied to homes in Rancho Rinconada in 1999
and 2000 because when they were in the ~~ounty, they were put under the auspices of the
Cupertino Building Code.
Said she had more things to discuss but wa;~ not sure of her time limit. She commented that
she had a Bachelors degree in Chemistry, and hoped that the architects didn't get to talk longer
than she did because she did not consider their training any more effective.
Dick Fang, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was a professional designer in the area for 20 years. Tonight there is a chance to raise
the second floor and ground floor more than 45%. He said he read all the staff reports and
there is a sense that if you build a larger :second floor, you should get nicer architectural
features; but he worried that things such as processing timing or processing to get approved
will get more complicated.
• Said his clients want only 3% or 5% more; :.f you go more than 45% they only get 3% or 5%
more than you go to another level of the stuciy; that probably is not fair for the small lot; most
of Cupertino lots are 6,000 square feet; Rancho Rinconada area is 4,500 or 5,000 square feet.
• Said if the desire is to open from 45% to up to no limit, he suggested current zoning ordinance
change to 45% to 50%, all requirements sta;~ the same; then people can more easily get either
three bedrooms of decent size upstairs or bigger size they can get four bedroom upstairs.
• They might not go to 100% of the house, 100% of the second floor; if you could split by 50%,
lower than 50% keep the ordinance as is no~~v. If people build more than 50% to 100% of the
second floor, they need to think about style wise, material wise, everything, so that might be
fair to all my clients' wishes.
Steve Yang, Cupertino resident:
• Practicing architect for 27 years.
• Relative to concept, Cupertino hinges on 45, this number for about 5 years. Prior to that a
smaller number and then because most of th.e community thinks it is a monster house, let me
add to that one too, when Ms. Griffin sho~~ved the photo on the screen, I thought it was a
disaster. True; however, that property con-dng to a PD project is not a single family stand
alone house, so it probably should have considered two types of approach for 45% or increase
more, whereas for PD or single family it world come into two different solutions possible.
• When you design a home the Commission brought up 100% buildout; I totally disagree with
that. The reason is that being an architect designing a home you can see it, giving a size of
5,000 to 7,000 square feet you should go first floor is heavily used space, the second floor
would be the bedroom normally; if 100% b~.~ildout you probably violate the 45% ratio of the
FAR, that is automatic. However, I support this increase. As far as up to 100% buildout of a
13 - 131 .
Cupertino Planning Commission 13 September 9, 2008
single family stand alone house, in my dictionary I don't think so. I never see it; and the city
of Cupertino invited a good architect to review the design before the final.
• Said he had a recent project in an undisclosed city; which is called a small lot single family;
and it looks like 100% bit it's not, but is a well designed one with two story, about 800 square
feet.
• That piece of architecture is well done plus they have an architectural review by not only the
Planning Commission but also outside consultant. Before they got it approved it had to go
through many layers, so I agree with this proposal of 45%.
Steve Piasecld:
• Clarified that the city does not use an outside architect for single family home remodels;
people come in and they meet the prescriptive requirements of the ordinance; we don't go
through Larry Cannon. We do for multiple family projects or single family developments
where we have five or six homes; but we don't do it for the individual single families. The
practice was abandoned because the ordinance became very prescriptive and it was costly and
took too much time.
Tom Tofigh, Cupertino resident:
• Said he wanted to share his experience of the process of building a single family home he
purchased in Cupertino about 2004. He realized that the home was built about 56 years ago
and was not energy efficient. Unfortunately the process took almost 2-l./2 years by the time
they received the permit. He said the people in city hall and planning department were very
nice and he appreciated all their patience. He spent about $500 just for copying costs alone and
his construction loan was in process. By the time he got the permit and the credit crunch
arose, he lost the construction loan and was out about $40,000 just on permits, etc. The
flexibility was not there, maybe if you trained the architects who do single family homes, they
know what all the codes mean and how to go about it and things can go faster, but the process
took such a long time that I missed the opportunity to build a new home for myself. I got to a
point where there was only the demolishment permit that I needed to get, but I didn't have the
financials to go forward with it. Part of it had to do with giving too much leeway to the
neighbors regarding what they like to do, they didn't like the style and they wouldn't say what
I could do about the style so I could change it. That process took such a long time.
• He asked the Commission to show compassion to the people building a single family home for
themselves vs. somebody who is professional and building a large number of homes and have
a lot of experience.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Chair Miller:
• Steve Yang brought up an interesting point; we have two standards, one for single family
homes and one for PDs. In PDs we do this as a matter of course go above 45%. Can staff
comment on that difference in treatment.
Steve Piasecid:
• What he is referring to in almost all the PD examples of their higher density projects, Murano,
or Astoria, these are projects in the 10, 12, 20 units to the acre category in most cases.. There
are other examples of conventional. single family and if we have multiple units being built and
they are developing an Oak Valley or four or five unit development, we are more concerned
about how to fit that in, how to make those units work together, so we refer to the architectural
13 - 132
Cupertino Planning Commission 14 September 9, 2008
• advisor for typical single family developn^~ents, one house at a time, the remodel example;
again, we don't; we found that the prescriptive requirements work fairly well so we just use
those.
• If you had a one unit PD project, you would have to go through the architectural advisor. The
rationale is partly you are being given greater flexibility in a plan development with small lot
single family homes a conventional home is being allowed. There are stricter design
requirements for PDs and in return for that,l:hey are given the flexibility to go up to 100%.
Chair Miller:
• What we are proposing here, is it is not go::ng all that way, because we are less restrictive in
PDs on all requirements including setbacks ~md lot size.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he had mixed feelings; and he strongly supports architectural diversity; the wedding cake
style developed in Cupertino is highly inefficient from a construction standpoint, but it
requires builders to use much more material and it is environmentally not the best way to
design. There is this issue of controlling ma;;s. The conflict is between having a nice clean set
of prescriptive rules which is what we are originally trying to do; so there is not a lot of
subjective review involved in the process; and relaxing those rules to allow flexibility, but
trying to control the quality of the buildin€; by putting in subjective review. The concern I
have is we are going to create one of two things; either a bottleneck because somebody has to
review all these designs and I don't agree v~rith the idea of just doing it on projects over 45%
where the second floor is over 45%; I think you should either do it or not do it. Now you are
creating a situation where all these project` have to be reviewed by someone; and the other
thing is because it is so subjective, there: are horror stories from other cities about the
architectural reviews where people just have their pet look they are trying to achieve and if
you don't match it then they just dig their heels in and you cannot do. On the one hand Palo
Alto does have beautiful buildings, but there have also been many complaints in the
architectural community about how hard it is to build in Palo Alto.
~ If we get into discussing wordsmithing different parts of the ordinance, there are other
comments to make.
Com. Rose:
• This is an important issue to discuss because there are areas of Cupertino that are experiencing
new home development on a lot by lot situation at a rapid rate; most of them are pockets
annexed into Cupertino in the last 15 years. What I think drove that annexation for many of
those communities, was the desire to get a~~vay from the county's building ordinance which
was a lot more lax. The ratio for the first t~~ second floor was up to 100%, and years of that
and watching this new trend toward building a more modern and more current home design,
we were seeing a trend toward very large homes without any architectural features and
everyone just maxed out the lot. That supp~~rted a lot of the annexation that happened in the
last ten years very smoothly for the city of Cupertino which worked very hard to try to lure
and annex those communities.
• The biggest carrot they were dangling was a process for building and also an Rl that was
going to be stricter and more considerate acid include such amenities as a privacy landscape
plan for homes with second floors, etc., things that we were not experiencing. I live in a
neighborhood that is transitional, under the county jurisdiction. I do think we have to be
cautious here, there was a lot of annexation done smoothly because of the carrot of support in
what was happening with development in these neighborhoods. That being said, when we
look at, again, as someone who lives in, a neighborhood, any Rl changes that happen in the
next 6 months, I will be witnessing within weeks and months, and constantly I see homes
13 -133
Cupertino Planning Commission 15 September 9, 2008
every four months being built around me. I am aware of this and if I could speak for people in
those communities where there is a lot of turnover; there is a lot of neighborhoods in
Cupertino that do not really ever get to see the R1 in action; they are not as transitional and I
think when you live in a community that is transitional, you welcome older homes that are
outdated being replaced with newer homes; it makes everything look better; often times
sidewalks are improved, street lighting is improved, so the connotation that development is a
negative thing for many of the older neighborhoods is false, and with that I think there is some
frustration that there is a predominant look and feel of a Mediterranean style and they are
larger homes, so they often stand out, but I don't think the changes that we are talking about
here are really the right way to solve the "problem of wedding cake" which I also think is tied
to the problem of one design. We talked a lot about Craftsman style homes and I don't see a
lot of people wanting to build them and I don't think it is because of the FAR; I think people
really want that Mediterranean look and I think whether my neighborhood was under the
county ordinance or Cupertino ordinance, consistently everybody builds out to what the
maximum percentage numbers are in the ordinance. If we look at simply changing a number to
solve our concern about a design, I think we are going to- be disappointed in solving a design
problem. I think what we are going to find is just larger Mediterranean style homes.
What seems to be happening when people are building these homes, it boils down to what the
words are on the ordinance; even though we can have these 7 recommendations and ask the
Planning Department to make sure these homes meet these 7 things, what seems to be
consistently happening when someone is presenting an existing neighborhood with a new
home design and there is controversy with neighbors, you are going to find that when your
new homes goes through the planning process, what is really happening in Cupertino today is
it boils down to the exact thing that the ordinance says, and I think if we all ask ourselves as
Planning Commissioners, when we look at a plan and it is controversial and there are two sides
of the street here in front of us, we make our decision boiled right down to the bare bones of
that ordinance, and so if the bare bones of that ordinance says 45% plus, the objective of a
high quality building material or trellis or bench, all of things get watered down and pushed
around and negotiated and the plan moves forward based on a number or a privacy
landscaping plan. But it doesn't go beyond that; so if we are looking at changing a number, I
think we have to know that is going to be the norm; people are going to take the maximum and
do the maximum; that is .what they do now, it is not going to change and when we are faced
with issues, all of these good intentioned seven items are going to get watered down and we
are going to end up saying, well the ordinance says you can do xyz, so we need to let them
follow what the ordinance says.
She said she was speaking as someone who has watched development under county and city
ordinance for 15 years, someone who has also lived in a neighborhood that will be
immediately affected by these changes and she would welcome new design.
I know we are not going to get smaller homes, because everyone wants a big house, but I
would like to see this done right. We are making ourselves and planners into architectural
experts; there is a whole process that would need to be developed that could really push this
through correctly but I don't think this is the right way to do it.
She said she was.rejecting the proposal.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt it made no sense to change the second floor 10 foot setback surcharge
requirement; if anything it should be easier to meet that requirement if you have a smaller first
floor. I don't know why we would seriously consider that. I have been going back and forth
on this, we have had two previous votes on this in which I voted Yes to move it forward and
between now and when we vote I still may wobble, but I think I am leaning toward voting No
on this now.
13 - 134
Cupertino Planning Commission 16 September 9, 2008
The going away from a prescriptive to a subjective judgment of aesthetics is just a process that
we have great trouble dealing with much more simple issues and when we have an issue that
simply cannot be resolved by any defmitive facts, I just think it will make things worse. I
would be tempted to, if as a compromise i1' we could look at a smaller FAR ratio for homes
that are over 45% second floor to first floor; I might consider that, but at this stage it seems to
me that the benefits of modifying the Rl ordinance in this manner are just not worth the gain.
Again, I am open to that; it seems to me that we have spent a great amount of time dealing
with what axe not the key issues. Let me offer as an alternative way of looking at it, a couple
of meetings ago when we had our Lindy L<<ne cases, the case of the Simas house which was
essentially 100% and it is probably one of the most attractive homes in the city; part of the
reason it works is because the FAR on that is far below .45, so I think there is certainly a case
where we could get better architecture through some process; but I guess given the other
clauses within the R1 ordinance, I just don't feel comfortable that the gains would be worth it.
At this stage, I will likely vote No.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• It seems to me that everyone who has spoken so far is in favor of promoting our architectural
diversity within Cupertino; the problem is, how do we do it; plus protect the neighbor's
privacy as well as the person who is building the proposed home.
• I agree that the proposal before us does not solve the key issue that I hear from people in
neighborhoods, which is the new home is ir..vasive, it is too massive, it is out of scale for the
neighborhood. I also agree that your neighbors should not have veto power over the home you
want to build. We have heard one resident tc;stify that he was stuck in planning for 2-1/2 years
trying to get his home plan approved and because of market situations wasn't able to complete
the process.
• In contrast to what Steve Yang said about the Architectural Review Board in Palo Alto,
perhaps that resident would have preferred us to have had an Architectural Review Board that
he and his architect could have made progress with. What is the right type of review for a city
like us, and what is the right way for us to pr~~mote architectural diversity within our city.
• I agree with Com. Kaneda that if we did change the process for second stories, we should have
one process for all residents; any second story addition would need to go through a review
process of some sort because otherwise my experience on Planning Commission is that we
have processes for people under 45% second story and over 45% second story; they are not
going to get it, it will just be too difficult for them to understand it.
• I think that one of the things I appreciated about the sample design guidelines we were given
from Los Altos and Los Gatos, is both oi' them talked about neighborhood sensitivity in
transitional neighborhoods, and I think that i:; key. You need to be sensitive to the style of the
neighborhood and what you want to achieve ~,vithout giving your neighbors veto power.
• I agree with many of the Commissioners who spoke prior to me; that this is not going to
achieve the objective that we want it to achieve; what I would like to suggest for discussion
because I think we have a majority on this, that this would not achieve that objective, is what
would. Should we send a request back to Council that perhaps we have a review board, if all
second story additions go to DRC or go to yin architectural review board. I have always felt
that the FAR is either too big for some lot:; or too small for other lots the way it is today.
Really it is the architectural quality that we need to focus on. Perhaps what we should ask
Council to do is let us review the R1 in tot<<l. As a response we are adding an architectural
review board for second story additions.
Chair Miller:
• The current ordinance was changed in 1999, and the reason was because people were worried
about mass and bulk. They were addressing mass and bulk and they addressed it not
13 - 135
Cupertino Planning Commission 17 September 9, 2008
necessarily by reducing the overall floor to area ratio but by instilling stricter setbacks. Before
1999, they didn't have any first floor to second floor ratio, and in 1999 they made it 35% of
th4e first floor. There was some discussion about the intent of the Planning Commission at that
time; it was really to make it larger than 35% but somehow when it got to Council, it got
changed and moved down to 35%.
One of the things I am struggling with is we don't want to increase mass and bulk but we are
considering making the second story a little larger and the second story correspondingly
smaller and staff's view are we going back to pre-1999 by doing this or not.
Steve Piasecki:
• The effect was to have the greater setbacks to offset the second floor, to push it in. They
increased the second floor FAR compared to the first, in effect it was a tradeoff, we will let
you have more second floor but you have to set it in with surcharges. As long as you maintain
the second story setbacks, you are not going back to pre-1999 because you know the concern
about privacy, the window is in the same position as it is with the lower floor.
Chair Miller:
With respect to the neighbors, these ratios and these things come into play because of our
concern for neighbors' privacy and access to air and light. As long as we have the second
story setbacks in place, regardless of what the size of the second story is, I believe we have
achieved that; we still have the second story can't be any closer to the neighbor than it
currently is, and we still have all the requirements for privacy. I am not seeing where
increasing the second story makes any difference in terms of how it is perceived by the
neighbors. If anything, the neighbors might perceive that the houses are built a little further
away; there is a little more space because the first story is going to shrink, meaning that the
setbacks could potentially be larger on the first story.
The next thing that went through my mind- was listening to Com. Kaneda's comment which
was a good one, and that is that if we are going to consider design review, it shouldn't be
broken at 45%; so my question on that now, we have more of a prescriptive ordinance
presently and we are not doing detailed design review below 45% and my question is how is it
working. Are we getting bad or good designs in staff s view.
Gary Chao:
• A mixture of both; there are decent designs; a lot of people tend to spend a lot of time with the
detailing, but the majority are standard development constructions and could use more
embellishments, and quality material. If desired, you could design something within our
ordinance that looks good.
Com. Brophy: .
• If we are not doing much review on single family homes, why did it take the last gentleman
2-1/2 years to get his house through?
Steve Piasecki:
• Said he did not have any facts relating to the case; I can't tell you how it would take so long; it
should not have.
Gary Chao:
• It normally takes two to three weeks to turn a preliminary set of plans back to them. Once it is
back to them, it is up to the architect to make the appropriate changes, if any. It should not
take more than two months to get out of the preliminary conceptual review process and get to
the application phase which takes about one month and a half.
13 - 136
Cupertino Planning Commission 18 September 9, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Com. Rose mentioned that her concern was that if we allowed a greater second story, people
will go to the limit and max it out. In all other cities around here where there isn't a limit on
the second story, in staff's view, does everybody max out their second story.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said he was not certain he had enough fact;~ to help. If the question is, do people try to max
out the total allowable FAR that is a stand~ird response, whether it is a 35% FAR overall or
45%; land is expensive and people don't have the luxury of living in a grand estate; so many
people are doing that. In other jurisdictions, the process is much. more onerous than it is in
ours; I have seen examples in other communities where applicants are brought forth very
attractive designs and have been told they hive to change it and modify it and go through a lot
of processes. To your question, generally it is probably true that people attempt to build as
much as they can total FAR. I have not seen a second floor to first floor as a rule in other
cities, I think we are a bit uncommon in that regard.
Chair Miller:
• Steve Yang spoke to that to some extent ar~d said that it is not likely people are going to go
100% on the second story. I am not sure I have seen that bear out and I am hearing an
architect say that he hasn't seen it in his experience.
Com. Rose:
• She said to go to Garden Gate where most of the homes that were built in the County where
you were allowed to do that are sheer wall, second floor to first.
Steve Piasecki:
Pointed out that the vast majority of homers in the community are already there; there are
18,000 or 19,000 housing units total, and oi.'those 8,000 to 10,000 are single family; most of
what is seen is remodeling activity and it is ~~hysically difficult in a remodel to shape it so that
it is 100% because you are usually trying to build something over something that exists.
Steve Yang is correct that you are probably riot going to see 100% as a rule; if you are building
a new home you may want to take advanta€;e of it more so, and that is Com. Rose's point, is
that any new home they are going to try to do that because it is more efficient to build up at the
walls. What we are suggesting here is you will have a process and some requirements that will
replace what would have been a first story element with other architectural elements to soften
and control and make it look more attractive.. That does require that you go through some type
of process.
Chair Miller:
Com. Brophy and Vice Chair Giefer mentioned that perhaps another way to approach this
would be to reduce the FAR. I am in agreement with that, particularly .after we had Vye
Avenue applications. However, the Council is not, and we have already gone that route. Vice
Chair Giefer suggested and sent it back to the Council saying we want to review the whole R1
and the Council rejected that. I am not in :favor of asking the Council a second time to do
something they rejected the first time. Why;n I think of what the benefits of increasing the
second story over the first story are, I firmly believe that it is a functionality benefit; we are
helping the residents in terms of functionality.
I believe that staff is correct in that we will be increasing the diversity of styles in the
neighborhood instead of having one monolithic style. I like the idea that we are giving people
the opportunity to have a smaller footprint; by having a smaller footprint means that there is
13 - 137
Cupertino Planning Commission ~ 19 September 9, 2008
more landscaping, there is more green area and there is more open space for each resident in
the city, instead of forcing everyone to maximize their first story and all we see is home after
home right up to the setback limits and lots of house and very little open space and green area.
The challenge is what kind of process do you put in place because there is a concern that you
are not going to get good design and that is a very large challenge.
Said it was frightening to think they were not architects, and the DRC is not going to be in a
position to look at architecture, and it was mentioned that staff has some architectural skills
but they are not formal architects and the last thing we need to do is be putting lay folks in the
position of defining architectural style and certainly picking out what, to make sure that we are
consistent with a particular architectural style. Steve Yang also mentioned that it was rare that
}rou find a true architectural style where the house is totally consistent.
Said he felt .he was in the minority, but thought the benefits of increasing the second story
outweigh the disadvantages and was struggling with how, if the Commission is concerned with
the quality of what they get out of this, how to achieve that and still work with the idea, at
least for the applications that come to them. Said he was not unhappy with the architectural
styling and the architecture of the houses seen, but they don't see a lot of the houses that staff
approves.
If there is a benefit to going to a larger second story and the fact that none of our neighboring
towns have instituted an ordinance like we have, speaks to the fact that there is not a lot of
support in the region, in fact, for limiting the size of the second story. Again, I think that one
solution might be to reduce the FAR but we are not at liberty to do that unless we ask Council
is they would want to reconsider that particular option.
Com. Brophy:
• It is true that the second floor to first floor ratio item really strikes me as kind of a strange tool
with which to control design and I wish we had better ones. A lower FAR would work because
that is what most of the communities we-are comparing ourselves to do. A number of them are
at 35%. I have been wobbling on both sides of the issue and I guess at this point, I feel that,
while I think the proposal .has merit, I think that without addressing the underlying problem of
homes that are too large for the lots. The benefits, given the stress on the community and
unhappiness between neighbors, will not outweigh the cost.
• Said he was prepared to switch sides and vote No.
Chair D'tiiller:
• If we made a recommendation to increase the second story and also recommend that the FAR
be reduced accordingly, would that be more supported from your standpoint.
Com. Brophy:
• Yes, but I am not willing to go with a proposed ordinance. I would just send it as a
recommendation to the City Council. I have seen that the little caveats seem to disappear
when they make it to the Council, so if we want to send it as a recommendation, that is fine,
but not as a proposed ordinance.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she concurred with Com. Brophy, because it would be very easy for them to send it to
Council. If they send it back to Council and said they would go with no second story ratio
provided that the FAR was lowered to 35%, and hold no public hearings on that, she would be
uncomfortable just stating that, although it would probably address many of the issues that
come up to often.
• Sending it back to Council and saying no, but we recommend that we vote No on this proposal
but would like to do is open up FAR or open up the entire R1 because there are other things in
13 - 138
Cupertino Planning Commission ;?0 September 9, 2008
the Rl that need correcting besides FAR.
• Said she was not opposed to getting rid of a ;second story ratio, but if you are trying to add 3 to
5% to the second floor, you are just reducing; the bottom floor by 2 to 3%; which is not a lot; it
is negligible in terms of the impact of this policy; I don't really see any difference there.
Com. Kaneda:
• Palo Alto has a strong architectural review F3oard; it got quite a strong diversity of projects. I
know their process is set up with view planes, so you can do a straight two story building that
doesn't have a setback. Los Gatos also has: a large diversity of architecture; do they have a
similar Architectural Review Board type process; I am not familiar with their process. (Staff
responded that they do)
• City Council asked us to look at the ratio first floor to second floor, but somehow a stronger
architectural review process got slipped into the mix. Is that because the cities that we have
studied that have a different way of controlling buildings and building styles that seem to have
a nice result; is that the consistent theme th:it you found that they have a strong architectural
review board.
Steve Piasecld:
Said he did not know if he would make the correlation directly, but they couldn't think of any
other way to handle the issue of the straight alp walls short of some kind of additional process;
and they were not comfortable trying to do a prescriptive rule about architecture.
They are going through more process; and the process is either some kind of rigorous Design
Review Board or Planning Commission revie:w. There is an open public forum process review.
We mentioned that we had taken the architectural advisor out of the process and went to the
more prescriptive one. You could put the ar~~hitectural advisor back into the process; it would
cost about $1,000 per home and he could do a very good job of providing comments. We also
try to coach applicants because we see a lot of dumb designs and we know enough when we
see a dumb one to try to help people not do that; it is not in their own self interest. We have no
authority to force it one way or another and we don't.
Chair Miller:
• If the main concern is the vertical walls, why not just address the vertical walls if an
application has vertical walls in it, then why not that's the trigger point where we require more
intensive design. That is what I thought you were saying your main concern is vertical walls.
Steve Piasecki:
• That is one of the principle concerns and you could try to address it that way, but I think as
Com. Rose pointed out, you are going to h~~ve people pushing that limit. I have a two inch
offset to my wall, therefore it is not vertical. You have to define what you mean by vertical.
Vice Chair Giefer:
Commented that she heard at least three people agreed that this doesn't work for them and she
said what might be a better use of their tune is to focus on what is the right response to
Council. Do we want to send this back to therm and say No, it doesn't work, we want to add an
Architectural Review for all second stories to try to promote architectural diversity, because
that seems to work in neighboring communities where they do that.
Said she did not have a problem sending it back to Council, saying it doesn't work, and that
they want to review the R'. The Council ca~i make the decision whether or not they want the
Commission to pursue it, and if so, begin public hearings on it.
13 -139
Cupertino Planning Commission 21 September 9, 2008
Chair Miller:
• Said Com. Kaneda commented on the design review process; then we talked about having an
architect as a possible solution. My feeling on design review boards, I am hesitant to have lay
people commenting on architecture that they don't know about, but I probably wouldn't have a
,problem with an architect looking at situations that we define as important, and Com. Brophy
and you suggested that if lowered the FAR, that might be more acceptable to Commission. I
think we probably have a majority in support of that as well; I think we are headed in the right
direction.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• . Do we want to start getting consensus around those items, because I also heard Com. Brophy
say that he is hesitant on sending a recommendation such as that because Council tends to
piecemeal what we send to them, and they just take the acceptance of getting rid of the second
and not worry about the FAR.
Chair Miller:
• Asked if there was any reason for them to ask staff to do further research and come back at a
later time, or is a motion appropriate.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he did not think they were at a point where additional staff work would move them any
further along.
Com. Rose:
• I think we can make a motion; what I am hearing and we can discuss this, there is an interest
across the Council even to some degree staff, and ourselves on the Planning Commission in
making the architectural look and feel of new building in Cupertino have more diversity than it
does today. Doing that in a way that enhances neighborhoods and unifies neighborhoods as
best it can, and I don't think that is something that is too high to expect of our community
Com. Brophy:
• Said he was not happy with the idea of committing to an Architectural Review Board; and
from what friends in the architectural community have described to him about the Palo Alto
experience, the San Francisco experience, he was hesitant to support that process.
• Said he agreed that they should recommend they not go forward with the change to the first
floor second first floor ratio unless at the very least the FAR is reduced; and he would be
willing to open up other areas of R1 if necessary. He said if there was such an interest, he
would be very reluctant to emphasize Architectural Review Board based on what he knows.
Com. Kaneda:
• You were asking my thoughts on the language, and my thoughts were more focused primarily
on the architectural issues, so that is irrelevant at this point.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Commented on Com. Brophy's comment. If they strike adding an Architectural Review Board
at this time, if Council decided that we should review the Rl to clean it up and make changes
to FAR, then that might be an outcome of that review at that time if it makes sense because we
don't hear a lot of complaints about Saratoga and Los Gatos, and Los Altos that I know all
have them, so perhaps it is better for us to spend some time understanding that.
13 - 140
Cupertino Planning Commission 22 September 9, 2008
Chair Miller:
• We both know that opening up the R1 could entail a year's worth of effort; personally I don't
think that is realistic, not from staff's time:, not from our time and not that the Council is
willing to accept. We can ask them again to do that, we have already asked them once and
they said No, so I am not sure what benefit there is in going down that route again. On the
other hand, if we can identify some very limited areas in the R1 that enhance what we are
trying to do here, then I see benefit in going back along that line, and perhaps they would
reconsider it at that point. There has been some acceptance about possibly reconsidering
lowering the FAR in order to do that; maybe the time when you do lower the FAR is when you
have these buildings that have larger secolid stories in order to compensate for what some
people feel is greater mass and bulk.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said it was an interesting point of view, but going to the comment about going through the R1
looking for things that would support this language, we would be opening it up anyway. I
think the proposal before us now is not on~~ I am hearing consensus on. As the seconder, I
would be comfortable striking the point of design review on this if the motioner would also
accept that.
Com. Rose:
• Our comment would be to recommend that we open up the FAR or the entire Rl to look at
how to better address design diversity. She summarized the motion: Tie do not recommend
that the City Council adopt the RI ordinance amendment regarding the first floor to second
floor ratio requirement; but instead recommend that we open up the FAR and closely related
matters which impact design diversity.
Com. Kaneda:
• We are talking about FAR, second story ratio and design diversity.
Com. Rose:
• Correct, we are trying to achieve design diversity in our R1 ordinance.
Com. Rose:
• To properly address design diversity, the Planning Commission recommends that to properly
address design diversity, they would need tc- examine areas of the R1, FAR and second story
ratio.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he felt they were talking about three: things; the requirements of the R1 FAR, the
requirements of the R1 second story ratio, and how to encourage or increase design quality.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• What I am hearing is that in addition to FAIZ and the second story to first story ratio, it is the
design guidelines that actually need to be strengthened to promote architectural diversity and
better quality design and execution within thy: city of Cupertino.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said there wasn't much in the form of desil;n guidelines in the current R1; it is prescriptive,
and you can do just about what you want.
13 - 141
Cupertino Planning Commission 23 September 9, 2008
Chair Miller called a brief recess to allow staff time to compose the appropriate wording for the
motion.
Chair Miller:
• When you just address design diversity, that is a staff concern, but the applicants that come up
here, their main concern is design functionality. I think there is a major word missing in there.
The issue here is that the small second story limits design functionality or limits functionality
period. Staff has a concern about design diversity, but the intent of changing the ordinance I
think is primarily from a functionality standpoint.
Steve Piaseclci:
• The flip side of what we are talking about is just the uniformity of design that you are getting
now. We get variations on a theme, but it's much the same thing.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• If our recommendation is to deny this proposal, what is missing is we don't specifically
address the area we were told to look at which is second floor ratio. She suggested rather than
talking about residential functionality, to put back in the key of this reviewing FAR and
perhaps be very explicit of its impact to second floor area ratio, She said they could get rid of
,that ratio, and only need one ratio (second floor/first floor ratio).
• Asked the Commission if it is explicit enough that their intent is to review FAR as part of this.
Steve Piaseclu:
• That would be the wording "and consideration of the overall impact of the allowable floor
area" which is FAR. Where it says "overall" take out the words "in consideration of the
allowable floor area and second floor to first floor".
Com. Brophy:
• Said he thought there was a good case to be made for being clear that is what they wanted to
look at. Once again, if they say No, it would be a dead subject and move on.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by Vice Chair Giefer, that the Planning
Commission does not recommend the proposed approach to deal with the second
floor to first floor ratio. The Planning Commission recommends that the concern
for design diversity and functionality are better addressed by evaluating a more
comprehensive design review process for two story homes, and consideration of
the allowable floor area ratio and second floor to first floor ratio. (Vote: 4-1-0;
Chair Miller No)
: None
No meeting.
Housing Commission: ~l~o meeting.
No report.
No. meeting.
13 - 142
Cupertino Planning Commission 23
Vice Chair Giefer:
• One because it is not specifically stated here; and as we are
and other p s, we are going to have abutting uses to one ano '
that wherever po 'ble, we are not chopping up par ' ots
July 8, 2008
EXHIBIT E
mgress/egress between vaned ownership. For ple, if for any reason xose nowt had
pazking access that abutted u o the Sand :Eli roperty, and there were two different pazking
lots, I would want one to be able tra etween both of those land ownership parking lots
and not have any batriers separa ' o parking lots; so I would like it to be specifically
stated that "all pazking lots accessible t. een the different ownership groups." Said she
agreed with amendin to allow for the protec ' of residential areas. It is between the
commerciaUreta' aces; residential I agree should be otected, so I am not including that,
but for youYcommercial parking, anybody should be able ark anywhere where they can
fmd a- space. She said because it is under multiple ownership, s would like it to be very
obvious that that is the expectation.
Motion: Motion by Com. Rose, second by ~~om. Kaneda, to recommend approval
of the Master Plan as amended. ('Vote: 5-0.0)
Chair Miller declazed a recess.
4. MCA-2008-03 Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance
City of Cupertino (Section 19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second
Citywide Location floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The
Revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to
facilitate greater azchitectur~l diversity, but will not consider increasing or
decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the
required second story setbacks. Continued from the May 13, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled.
Gary Chao, Senior Planner, presented the stalff report:
• Reviewed the background of the application for discussion of the Rl Ordinance first floor to
second floor ratio requirements, as outline~I in the staff report. On May 6, 2008 the City
Council amended the Planning Commissioc~ work program for 2007-08 to include a limited
review of the Rl ordinance, specifically regarding the size of second floor ratio compared with
the ground floor, with recommendations to lie presented to the City Council by October 2008.
Citywide notification was mailed out as well as the creation of an information webpage with
hearing information, related resources regarding RI and the current regulations
~ Relative to the review fi-amework, the focus will be considering whether there should be any
adjustments to the required ratio of the second floor size to the ground floor. We also think
that if the Planning Commission desires some adjustments, the rule pertaining to the total
allowable exposed second floor wall height should also be considered since it goes hand in
hand. Currently the ordinance requires second floor to not exceed 45% of the ground floor, or
750 sq. ft. whichever is greater. In addition., the existing ordinance also has a provision that
says all the perimeter second floor walls shall not be over 6 feet in height exposed up to 50%.
~ He emphasized that it was a limited review, meaning for the viewers that the Council did not
want us to look into tweaking the building areas or second story setbacks, and, they want to
look at ways to look within the existing ordinance infrastructure and see how we can facilitate
greater architectural diversity. The City Council has expressed concerns and some concerns
expressed by the residents that the exiting It1 Ordinance limits diversity of architecture. As
part of the last Rl process, one of the changers at the time was to allow for a slight increase of
the second floor ratio from 35% to 45%; at that time it_was a reasonable accommodation to
13 - 143
Cupertino Planning Commission 24 July 8, 2008
allow people to have a third bedroom upstairs to have enough room to have reasonable
functionality of a second floor. In this case, the consideration is different; it is not to allow
people to have a lazger second floor per se, but the focus should be on allowing people some
flexibility of the ratio so that other types of architectwe could be fitted within the envelope.
We have been hearing that the existing 45% second floor to ground floor ratio restricts, even
though it covers mass and bulk, but it prevents other types of azchitecture such as Victorian
style, true Craftsman style, and the fact that the 50% second floor wall exposwe also
contributes to that limitation. As a result, what we are seeing more is the repetitiveness of the
"wedding cake" architecture as the dominant architecture and there is not going to be a lot of
flavor and character, if you will that one would agree from a community like Los Gatos or Los
Altos would have. Because of the restrictio0n on the size and second floor, people are trying
to increase their ground floor to accommodate for the size of the second floor that they want.
It is counter intuitive, people don't necessarily need the square feet, but they are providing it to
get the sufl•icient room they want upstairs.
Leslie Gross, Assistant Planner:
• Reviewed the various architectural styles in Cupertino, which are illustrated and detailed in the
staff report. She also reviewed the design guidelines of other communities such as Los Gatos
and Los Altos which are outlined in the staff report.
Gary Chao:
• Said that staff believes that in order to achieve architectural diversity, one doesn't necessarily
have to tweak the setback or the floor area ratio; they are proposing ordinance solution that by
incorporating appropriate design review process and the finding design principles that one can
apply, that you can achieve architectural diversity through that process. Therefore homes may
be allowed potentially to exceed the 45% second floor limit and/or exceed the 50% second
floor exposed wall rule if they are designed appropriately. Staff is suggesting that the Director
of Community Development may grant the approval to allow the second floor to exceed the
45% and at the same time to exceed the 50% wall rule provided that the following principles
and techniques are met:
-~ Enswe appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with neighborhood design
theme and character;
-a Enswe appropriate building mass and scale;
-~ Design with azchitectural integrity on all sides of the structwe (maintain symmetry,
proportion and balance).
It preserves the existing 45% rote, but if one wishes to exceed that, we could facilitate that
process in exchange for better architecture and more diversity. The principles aze to enswe
appropriate architectural interest and compatibility with the neighborhood design in terms of
theme and character, and some of that are adding visual interest such as balconies, porches,
overhangs, and trellises, many of the things already touched upon. The decision of the
Director may be appealed to the Design Review Committee.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the Rl
Ordinance amendment as proposed with the provision to also cover the 50% maximum second
story wall exposwe rule.
Chair Miller:
• Asked staff to review the process and the type of review that goes on today for two story
residences in Cupertino.
Gary Chao:
• All two stories are discretionary review; it is staff level approval; however, we would advertise
13 - 144
Cupertino Planning Commission 25 July 8, 2008
the proposal to adjacent neighbors or neighbors within 300 feet. When an application is
received, story poles are required to be erected, notice boards to be posted in front of the
project site to disclose a floor plan and a rendering of the development. The adjacent
neighbors are given a two week comment period before staff entertains approval or a decision;
a decision of the Planning Department is ap~~ealable to the Design Review Committee.
The process for a second story greater than 45% is the same as what is being done now; it has
been noticed already. It will be treated at ;;tall level with neighborhood notification. Staff is
suggesting that the decision of the Director can be appealed to the DRC. Presently there are
no design guidelines or instructions how to treat some of the plain facades that may be
prevalent in a more traditional architectural style.
Staff is suggesting that there be a special ;process and review process for that purpose with
detailed guidelines for people wishing to exceed their second floor ratio.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Recalled than when the Rl was reviewed, she and Com. Miller were the only two
Commissioners still serving who were part of the process; the Committee determined that they
wanted it to be as prescriptive as possible to eliminate the necessity of design guidelines and to
incorporate as many of those features directly into the Rl .
Steve Piasecld:
• Said that when an applicant comes in and is informed they have some options, you can come
in with a 45% second floor to first floor ratio; it is essentially one-third of the second, two-
thirds on the ground floor. We were usuig the ground floor building azea to act as that
softening of that second story building wall. You can come in that way; you still notice your
neighbors and they still have the opportunity for input. The alternative is you can go higher
than that; essentially you are stripping away that softening element but you need to replace it
with something else, and staff has described all the something elses that we would expect. We
still notify the neighbors, but the applicant should talk to the neighbors before they apply for
one of the options to make sure their preference isn't just privacy is the most important issue.
You would replace it again with other elerr~ents, and then you would hopefully work it out
with your neighbor before you come into this city. We would review it, notice the neighbors
and if the neighbors want to appeal it to the DRC, it would be resolved in that format and/or
the Planning Commission. Staffwill not be in the middle.
Com. Brophy:
• Has staff received any feedback from architects or local home builders relative to the proposed
changes?
Gary Chao:
• Said they have spoken to several local architects who have done work in town and they all
agree that if you were to tweak the second floor 45% ratio without tweaking the 50% rule, it is
not going to work. Many of them admit what we have now; they have their system down in
terms of satisfying their clients needs, and at the same time designing something that is
acceptable to staff. However, they do recognize the fact that it is pretty much it; everything is
going to look like a wedding cake and that precludes their ability to provide any other type of
architecture and that the direction they are headed toward is a positive one.
Com. Brophy:
• In a lot of the town the wedding cake style of architecture is so predominant that people would
find exceptions to that on new lots to be objectionable. I was wondering if that was.a problem.
People get unhappy if you want to build something that is different from what the neighbors
13 - 145
Cupertino Planning Commission 26 July 8, 2008
have; and I was wondering whether or not we are opening up a new can of worms here.
Gary Chao:
• We have heard that before as well. That is why the term wedding cake came about. We get it
both ways; often times people complain about repetitiveness of new style of architecture which
is prescribed by our current ordinance; but then there are some who are resistant to the
different theme or style of architecture. It is important to note that a lot of the things we are
discussing are to still respect the theme and character of the neighborhood. It is the main focal
point of this proposal.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said it was important to note that what is being suggested is if you want to go in this direction,
you need to replace it with something like this.
Com. Brophy:
• Said that coming back from the most recent DRC meeting that he and Vice Chair Giefer
attended, they both had some second thoughts as to the vote we had on allowing exception to
the second story setbacks. He said he would feel better if they are going to allow lazger second
floors; they could add a clause that makes it cleaz that the policy is to be skeptical of exception
requests, especially for those homes that are at or near the maximum FAR
Com. Rose:
• Asked if someone today wanted to exceed the second floor ratio as it stands, do they have the
option of asking for an exception, but it will not fit t he 45%; is there a process for that or is it
automatically not allowed.
Gary Chao:
• There is a process for that; it would be an Rl exception request; it would go directly to the
DRC instead of staff level review. We haven't had a formal proposal as such since the last
ordinance change. A lot of the times people's fear is that the word exception is not really
accepted to neighbors once it is being noticed. Now we would likely entertain something like
that if the architecture is superior; however, being that there is no case study in the past, it will
be interesting how the DRC is going to treat that as well.
Com. Rose:
• Using the same argument you are using, you are suggesting a change if it was an attractive
house that had treatments and landscaping, and side wraps and high quality materials and
preserve mature landscaping and positive conversations with the neighbors; then it could very
likely happen for that person.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said it could be approved; it would need two exceptions: the second floor to first floor, plus
the 50% wall plane and you have no rules or guidance about how to judge that. All this would
do is give you some rules and language that would back up the granting of that. It wouldn't be
called an exception.
Com. Rose:
• If this were to move forward as proposed with the typical noticing of the neighbors within the
300 feet, would it call out the change to the second floor area ratio as something that is
different about this house?
13-146
Cupertino Planning Commission 27 July 8, 2008
Gary Chao:
• Said it would be part of the legal description of the project on a notice that goes out.
• Explained the 50% wall plane rule. If yoit take all four walls of the second floor; the linear
walls and stretch them out, you will get a total lineaz feet of the perimeter walls; the ordinance
says that 50% of it has to be 6 feet or less in height exposed; and it goes into specifics as to
how that could be accomplished. It cannot be just a trellis or lattice structure or some type of
fake architectural skirt or roof around the ground floor; it has to be an enclosed structure down
below with its roof going up to cover that wall up to 6 feet. You can have in theory two sides
of the wall completely flushed all the way from ground floor to second floor; however, the
other two have to be extremely recessed a~~d indented. We don't normally see that happen;
usually it is a combination of some vertical wall on the same elevation and some roof being
used to serve as that cover
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was under the impression that you could not have a two story wall anywhere at any
time.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said that people have been complying with that at3er a lot of explanation from staff. It is one
of the most difficult things people have to comply with.
. Com. Kaneda:
• Said that he generally supported what you aze going for, but one of the issues becomes, there is
a fine line between some of the projects you shared that were bad and some of the projects that
you shared that were very nice and it boils down to architectural aesthetics. It is a good idea to
ask the Planning Commission and City Cot;~ncil to make their judgment calls; that is the big
difficulty. Palo Alto has an ARB that is famous; the buildings are nice, but difficult for the
architects to get a building through the pro~:ess. He said even though he liked the concept,
how would it be done in real life?
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said it was a good point; this is where the rub is; you end up bringing in a greater level of
design review and process and you are corre~~t, and the communities that exercise this level of
design review, it can be torture.
• For the record, staff did not bring this forwani, but we are trying to give you a method that will
be between the two extremes, and the only ore we can think of is we have a higher expectation
of design, the proof is in the pudding, talk to your neighbors, bring it to the DRC or staff first,
and if it looks like some of the pictures shown, we are likely going to approve it and anyone
can appeal it. If it is anything significantly less than that, then we are not going to approve it;
it will go to the DRC, and you are likely going to have a fight with your neighbors. The
biggest rub here is people spend a lot of motley designing houses, and they don't want to get
too far down the line before they know that they have a winner. It can be 10% or 15% of the
project costs, a half million dollar home is F~retty expensive. You aze identifying one of the
real issues that comes up.
Com. Kaneda:
• Is there any value in coming up with a sliding scale based on lot size for the 45%.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said there is; the Commission can make any recommendation to the Council; you can look at
other options such as sliding scales, lower FA:[ts, but it was not the direction from Council.
13 - 147
Cupertino Planning Commission 28 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he was concerned about matching the predominant style of the neighborhood. Some of
the neighborhoods have a lot of variety and the Eichler neighborhoods aze also attractive. Said
he was concerned about putting in a set of rules for neighborhoods, especially for those that
already have two story wedding cake, Mediterranean style, developer-looking California
suburban homes which aze now locked into that, and all the homes in that neighborhood
theoretically have to match that style.
Steve Piasecld:
• Said it was an excellent point, and said it was offered on numerous occasions to
neighborhoods who have strong opinions about being one-story ranches or Eichlers. A case
can be made if you can show that there is a dominant style, and that is what the super majority
of the neighborhood wants to live with; however, it is extremely difficult to get the super
majority to agree.
Com. Rose:
• Asked questions how many homes aze torn down and rebuilt per year, single family tgwo story
residences; (staff responded about S0; major remodels with removal of a large portion of the
house would be between 100-ISO per year.)
• Are a lot of builders building less than they are allowed to based on their lot ratios and second
floor ratios; is there a trend towazd people being more concerned about a certain style of home
or are they prioritizing how much house they can get on the lot based on the ordinance.
Gary Chao:
• Said the current ordinance does an adequate job in allowing a reasonable size of houses
compared to the lot size; we are not hearing people complain about why they can't build a
bigger house, but most of the houses coming in aze waxed out. What we are hearing is people
saying they wished they could have done something different; you are designing my house for
me; the home owner doesn't have a lot of flexibility, but doing as prescribed.
Com. Rose:
• Said that the photos of homes illustrated a style of home she did not see a lot in Cupertino; and
wondering if you have, what I tend to see is the Mediterranean style and I am curious how that
is going to look with the proposed 50% second floor ratio. Although the homes were
attractive, she did not see that as a preferred style within the development that tends to happen
residentially in Cupertino. She questioned if it was misleading to put that out there because
that may not be what will be seen if the second floor ratio is changed.
Gary Chao:
• Said there were some Mediterranean styles that work; they tend to be boxy, but there are
appliques and features that one could incorporate into it that will address the concern. He said
that many of the Mediterranean homes in Cupertino are not true to form. The genuine style
have a lot of recessed windows, cantilivers, attractive materials that go into the design.
• He said that indirectly the design is locked in when a plan set is approved, especially atwo-
story proposal, all the features are part of the approval. A covenant could be entertained to
disclose to the future property owner that there should be special review if something on the
house is changed.
Steve Piasecki:
• Said that people max out to the 45% overall floor area ratio; if the house sells and sells again
13 - 148.
Cupertino Planning Commission 29 July 8, 2008
and the new property owner applies to put in a shed and his request is denied. You pre-empt
all flexibility when you go to the maximum FAR, and it creates problems because every new
owner wants to put their stamp on it.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing,
Matthew Klein, Cupertino resident:
• Back in the 1930s, 40s to 70s, we didn't build 3,000 square feet second stories over 1,000
square feet first stories; we didn't have hou:>es like this. A few people on Prospect decided to
was offended. Hence, back to Com. Rose's question, why can't you build this house in
Cupertino; because if you look at the second story you will see that it is more than 45%, it is
more than SO%; in fact if you have it over tr:e enclosed porch, call it 125% or 130%. We have
125% roughly second floor to first floor; it vicorporates an enclosed porch which is the state of
design goal of the Cupertino Planning Commission but there is no affected enforcement of it
or affected encouragement of it because if you do a 45% second story over something like this
enclosed porch, you cannot build it. This i;s impossible today to build a building like this in
Cupertino. Why is it people aze building monstrosities/wedding cakes? It goes back to Com.
Kaneda's comment, this 50% exposed wall is very complicated but it is the single most
objective thing and the single most important thing that is driving the wedding cake design. It
is in fact a defacto additional setback of the second wall plane over the first wall. Forget the
general setbacks 20, 25, 15 feet surcharges; in order to get that 6 foot exposed on your second
wall, you have to come up with a structural feature against it, typically a roof line, so every
new building monstrosity in Cupertino, we ;ire forced to look at people's roofline at the mid
horizontal plane of their building. I don't want to look at your roofline, I don't want to look at
your molars, but why is it that every single building we are forced to look at people's
rooflines, because the architects and designers aze forced to give you that feature in order to
satisfy the exposed wall requirements. Peopte don't want to build monstrosities and wedding
cakes, they have to because people in Cupertino have children; if you want to add a second
story to an existing building, i.e. a remodel ~~vhich is different than new construction and you
want to have your children live on the same floor as you, you want to have enough square
footage to do that. But with an existing ranch style L-ranch, you are limited to 45% of your
existing; typically these houses have 6,000 to 8,000 square foot lots, but to do a remodel you
have to satisfy 45%, and with requirements for staircases and foyers, you are going to spend a
lot of money to get 700 usable square feet upstairs; and the reason is because the 50% rule
requires an imposed setback from the first plane. The existing house doesn't have sheer walls,
or a foundation sufficient for that so you have to remove the roof and spend a fortune to get a
small second story addition. The family decides to sell and move to another city. The next
buyer purchases the home and demolishes i~t and builds a monstrosity home. We have no
design guidelines for windows.
Delete the 50% exposed rule; delete the 45°ro; owners know what to do; no one is going to
build a 4,000 square foot second story over 1,000 square foot. You can't do it because the
setbacks won't permit it and the FAR won't permit it. Hence, regulations and setbacks on top
of the setbacks are ridiculous; it is producing the monstrosity buildings which have been in the
last ten years, and we scratch our heads and ~avonder why we have this mess; it is because of
your design guidelines.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
• She questioned why they were reopening the Rl ordinance; it is completely different than
what was discussed in March. How did we ~~vind up having this go to 50% and breaking up
the sheer wall plane. This is contradictory to :Etl; we are basically reopening the entire thing.
• She expressed concern about the monster homes and creating big boxes, and Rancho
13 - 149
Cupertino Planning Commission 30 July 8, 2008
Rinconada is going to have to have a special zoning, Rl-R, just lake Fairgrove, the Eichler
community. We have lots that are less than 5,000 square feet, my house is 800 sq. ft., now if
we ever put a second story in, I am committed to putting in second story setbacks because I
respect my neighbor's privacy. We have a balcony going up; across the street and that has
completely upset the neighbors. Gary Chao designed a wedding cake house which has made
the neighbors okay with the balcony, and the balcony looks right into all ow homes. I saw
the first story going up today; my neighbor across the street with two small children is going
to have a balcony looking directly into her kitchen and backyard. The reason why we have
RI today; if we are going down this road, let's reopen the entire thing; I have spent hows and
hours in this pity in these meetings discussing Rl, so let's take it to the entire limit; my
brother when they put a second story on their 1892 Victorian home in Los Gatos, it took 9
months to go through the code. Let's do it; let's have every possible little building restriction;
let's limit the colors to six colors like you do with the Victorian in Los Gatos. In my
neighborhood of Rancho Rinconada we need second story setbacks, we need neighbors'
privacy to maintain our lovely wedding cake homes and some of ow old Rancho homes.
Matt Itamkar, Cupertino resident:
• In favor of application.
• I would like to urge to support and change the 45% rule. Here are some of the issues that
were not discussed.
• When you make the second story larger compared to the first story, that gives you a bigger
back yard; I believe a bigger back yard goes into both more green space and better quality of
life for yow family. It would also be less strain on city resources as parks. The other reason I
believe we need to do that is Vice Chair Giefer referred to purple pipe. The purple pipe will
allow a bigger back yard gives you better more room to do rainwater captwe on a small well
within your site and use the water for irrigation and landscaping. Second story, the current
regulations will discowage solar panels because the angle of the roofs that come into the
walls so a smaller first story which would be the result of this regulation being passed will
create smaller roofs and smaller foundations which is more resowce conservation. Finally, if
a potential homebuilder has a choice between the property on our side of the border vs. San
Jose that goes to Cupertino schools, they would chose the San Jose side and take the city of
the opportunity to get funding and property tax upgrade that comes with more transactions
within the city. For these reasons, I believe we should go ahead and increase the 45% rule.
Dennis Liu, Cupertino resident:
• I am a developer and currently working with an azchitect to design a new house in Cupertino
area and I just found out it is very difficult with the 45% law; my azchitect said it was
impossible to build a two story house with three bedrooms on the same floor. As you know
most of the family in this area that still have more than one child, so with this 45% rule, you
can only build a maximum of two rooms on the same floor: We have forced the family to
separate the children on a different floor, which creates a difficulty for some of the families. I
work with many realtors in this area and they told me that they aze all facing this problem; the
young family moving into the area really like the education system in Cupertino and have to
sacrifice and put the young children on different floors. I think this is a tremendous difficulty
for many young families, and I agree with many other architects; I would like to support and
have this amendment to increase the 45%.
~ He said in return for being able to do up to 100%, he said it was worth the effort to have a
higher level of azchitectwal review.
Terry Brown, Cupertino resident:
• Said he was in favor of eliminating the 45% rule. It is another example of efforts to reduce
13 - 150
Cupertino Planning Commission 31 July S, 2008
good architectural design to mathematical formulas; and it will fail every time.
Relative to the 50% rule, he said he hoped they were talking about the wall plane issue, not
just changing the FAR upstairs to .5. (Stcr,,~''said the SD% was wall plane area)
Said he was generally opposed to architectural review of any sort. I think that I prefer to have
architects practice their trade; people build :homes that they like the looks of, not necessarily
some one else's choice; but I am certainly answer that question you put to the last speaker in
pretty much the same way; if you can get ricf of the .45, get rid of the mathematical formulas,
then I guess we can put up with increased architectural review.
Seema Mittal, Cupertino resident:
• Said she designed homes in Cupertino, Palc Alto, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, all neighboring
cities, and it is interesting how different the cities are and how the products of architecture are
different in different cities. Most of the issues have been addressed between the people who
spoke here and the Commissioners.
• Said she supported removal of the upper story restriction and having design guidelines,
because presently Cupertino does not have diem. While it is subjective, there is nothing you
can point to when working with your client. However, what happens when you change the
rules in the middle of the road, we were building to 35% upper story, then a couple of years
ago we started building to 45% and now inching up. There are certain homes that have
already been built on that premise; they were 1,000 square feet on the upper level and they
assumed that the neighboring house would d~~ the same. As a result, privacy views, sunlight,
solar devices, are at stake. It is difficult to bring up those objections because they are not
quantitative; they are qualitative. It is easy to enforce numbers but difficult to enforce
something subjective. I think if there were graphic design guidelines and if the Rl code said
that neighbors' concerns regarding view, sunlight, privacy; because there are options how you
design upper stories; you have to keep the cor.:text in mind; you have to see what is going on in
the neighboring houses; you can't just completely ignore it and say that you meet your
numbers, so I have met the design criteria and I will sail through.
• Said she had no objection to the increase, provided there are graphic guidelines and provided
that the planners can enforce views, privacy.
Chair Miller:
• Pointed out that they did not change the second story setbacks; so your comment about it is
going to change access to light and privacy i:~ not completely on target, because the setbacks
for the second story are exactly the same as th~;y are today.
Seema Ii'tittal:
• Said that the RI did not address the upper st~~ry balconies. You can have 1,000 square foot
upper story balcony because it is not counted in the FAR and have a huge upper story mass,
and it can't be questioned quantitatively bec~mse it adds to the mass but doesn't add to the
square footage.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Rose:
• Said she appreciated the speakers providing input, and was in favor of keeping the status quo.
• We are tasked with only to consider the current second floor ratio to first floor ratio and the
argument that is asking us to look at this concern is that homeowners, the current situation
encourages homeowners to increase the size oj~ their first floor to get the most they can out of
their second floor, which allows a certain numt~er of bedrooms, children on the same floor.
• The second thing we are addressing is the current ratio also encourages sort of one style of
13 - 151
Cupertino Planning Commission 32 July 8, 2008
home which is referred to as the wedding cake style, and it is not allowing people to design
and build other styles of homes.
I wish I could feel confident that what we are discussing tonight would change some of the
architectural houses we are seeing coming up in Cupertino. I wish that the list of treatments
that are proposed to soften a house that perhaps has a larger than 45% second floor would
always be included in the architectural plans. Unfortunately I am skeptical for two reasons. I
live in a neighborhood that used to have no requirement for a second floor setback or ratio, so I
am surrounded by homes that have that block feeling on very large lots. I think that is
indicative that when you aze given the opportunity to build as big as you can, you do. Staff
validated that point and a speaker also said he would build as big as he can. I am not certain
this is the answer to getting smaller homes; generally it is just an open door to build lagger
homes that have more of a bulk appearance and that you are going to have to cross yow
fmgers that the builder and the staff are going to be working in sync to use architectural
features to minimize the bulk of that house. I just don't feel comfortable with that much gray
area when it comes to new development.
What staff was saying about the 45% rule must be changed with the 50% rule, I am not
comfortable with the fact that we have separated those two, and I think that it is difficult to say
a house has to have a friendly presence to the street. I think everyone could have a different
idea of what that means, so although I like all the ideas presented to soften the look of a house
that potentially has a second floor that is greater than 45% of the first, I am not confident based
on what I see happening currently, that those suggestions will be carried through in an
attractive manner. I don't think we are going to see homes different than what we are
presently seeing.
It needs to be thought of a lot differently and a lot deeper than it is. If we are going to open up
the R1, we should be looking at the much bigger pictwe than what we are trying to do today.
Com. Brophy:
• I would agree that I would prefer to see a more comprehensive look at Rl, but he Council has
decided otherwise. Given that theoretically it has always been possible for a home builder or
applicant to ask for an exception, I don't see that this change is a huge change; apparently
home builders have chosen not to exercise the right to ask for an exception or they feel that is
not an area that can open up, I think I would with some hesitation, flip on the other side and
think that it would hopefully lead to improved quality of architecture.
• The one change I would make from the proposed ordinance, is include a class discouraging
exceptions for second story setback requirements for homes that aze at or near the maximum
FAR.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Agreed with Com. Brophy that there is an avenue available to builders today that if they do
want a building larger second floor and reduce the reduce the first floor, that the process does
exist today. I share the same concerns that Com. Rose had that it isn't really going to make a
big difference; we are still going to see people move forward in the easiest path with the lease
resistance which is the status quo today.
~ Recalled as one of the Commissioners when the last RI Ordinance revision was done, one of
the reasons they went to a very prescriptive format, we did have design review guidelines, and
it put staff in conflict with the property owners quite a bit of the time, and property owners we
frequently heard that they were delayed by staff, so when I think about putting the design
guidelines which when we approved the Rl, which I don't think I voted for the current Rl,
when we did approve that as a body, the major sentiment by many Commissioners was we
needed to be highly prescriptive because otherwise the property owners felt that staff was
dictating what could be built; which is some of what we are hearing today as well.
13-152
Cupertino Planning Commission 33 July 8, 2008
Expressed concern about putting staff bacl; into the point of conflict with the public, which
could occur, we don't have design guidelines; I find the suggested language conflicts and will
create greater confusion with our current R:l policy. I think that we are not directed to review
the 50% wall ratio and so if we are going to go back to Council and say yes let's do this and
we recommend further review of the 50%, there are a lot of other things I would rather review
in the Rl than the 50% wall ratio and the change to the first second story ratio. I think there
are a lot more compelling things we should :look at in the Rl. When we moved forward on the
last Rl we said we felt as a body we should. review it every five yeazs; we are at the five yeaz
mark, and perhaps we should open up the entire Rl as has been suggested. Put more thought
into design guidelines.
I would like to see more varied architecture in Cupertino; it is possible today.
My final comment in reading all the other ordinances that staff provided us for part of our
review for this evening, I was struck by ho~v all of the cities were really community focused;
they acknowledged that the people wanted to move into a specific neighborhood was because
they wanted to be part of that neighborhood, and if you care about a neighborhood and you
want to be part of that neighborhood, you ai~e not going to disrupt the neighborhood; you will
improve your property because it will vis a iris improve the neighborhood, but our Rl doesn't
really care about the neighborhood; it cares t~bout the rights of the incoming property owner to
come in and build whatever they want to build, and if it is an attractive building, I support it. I
think we need to do that. If it is a spec home that is being built as cheaply as can and as large
as possible, then I think it needs greater scrutiny.
If we were going to move forward on the Rl., I would support taking more of a neighborhood
buy-in process in the neighborhood orientation with where we go.
Said she did not support what is shown today; I like the idea of further design scrutiny, but that
is available today.
Com. Kaneda:
• Conceptually I support the amendment, but ax this point I don't support it. I take exception to
the way the ordinance is set up now; I thinb: the wedding cake design pushes azchitects into
doing mediocre design at best.
• Talking about sustainability, there are somE; real sustainability issues involved in that too,
because if you are forced to go in, there is a resource issue, there is a structural issue, the sheer
walls can't cant' out; the framing gets more complicated. It forces an architect to do things
that are structurally unnatwal, and so I think we have built a lot of buildings like that that
haven't done a great service to the community. On the other hand, the whole reason that was
put in place was because of some pretty egregious two story massive buildings that were built
in Cupertino and those in their own way are as bad or worse architecturally. I am willing to
look at a change that will allow people to do buildings that aze two story and styles that are
different, but I think it really needs to be thought out that there has to be a lot of care and tune
and effort put into putting the guidelines together, to make sure that it is done.
~ The other thing is I suspect that it is going to 17e frustrating for the architects that are designing
buildings in our community because I.think a lot of times what will happen is you will be
working within the rules still, but you have this layer of people telling you it doesn't look good
because of this and this change or design. I am concerned; I am not sure how we will do it, but
evidently a lot of the other cities have figuredf out how to do it. Look to the other cities to see
how they are doing it, and find the best pr3ctic:e among them.
Chair Miller:
• I have never been in favor of limiting the :second story, for many of the reasons that the
speakers have addressed.
• Matt Kamkaz discussed the fact that you get more green space and you have less runoff to deal
13 - 153
Cupertino Planning Commission 34 July 8, 2008
with; from that standpoint it is more of a green design by allowing people to go up. It also
promotes better solar usage because you get more access to roof area to do that, as opposed to
having the little roofs here and there that you can't put a significant solar system on.
I think that this change doesn't, if the concern is that it affects privacy or it affects access to
sunlight, I don't believe that is correct because second story setbacks are not being adjusted;
and that is the governing rule that affects both the privacy and the access to sunlight, and we
address privacy with different treatments of the windows and address it with landscaping and
the fact that there maybe a vertical wall plane, it is going to be 15 feet from the property line,
instead of 5 feet from the property line. In effect you are increasing the space between
yourself and your neighbor if you chose to go vertical and to my way of thinking that is a good
thing. If you go back east, all you see is vertical buildings and I have looked at this in Boston
and Connecticut and in New York and other places, and the difference between there and here
is the horizontal space between the buildings. The further you are away from your neighbor,
the less objectionable the higher elevation is when you deal with houses. The 50% wall plane,
I agree with staff, we cannot do one without the other and since the Council did not direct us
not to talk about the 50%, I think that is appropriate; otherwise we can't put this into effect.
I agree with Com. Brophy that if we do this we want to discourage changing giving exceptions
to the second story because then we would be compromising the privacy of the neighborhoods
and their access to light and sun.
The comments that Matt Klein made, specifically with respect to remodels is so on target, that
in order to do a remodel on a small house today, you basically have to teaz it down and build a
whole new house because of the limitations. The limitations we impose are far too onerous, so
we are forcing people to do more development on their property than they really need to do.
The other issue that seems to come up here is neighborhood compatibility and that has always
been a difficult area for me because I don't see anything wrong with eclectic and if you go into
some older neighborhoods in Willow Glen where all the houses were built by different
builders and every house is different and yet the neighborhood seems to fit together nicely; it
is quaint and the landscaping works; and even though the houses are different the azea looks
great. Willow Glen's resale values are up there with Cupertino's. What has a lot to do with it,
is how well that azchitectural design works there, or the non-existence of architectural design,
because the fact is when we talk about neighborhood compatibility, some people take it to the
point of what I call neighborhood conformity. Every house has to look the same; and we have
had people come up and argue in neighborhoods where most of the neighborhood was ranch
houses built after World War II and argued that it has to be a ranch house in the World War II
style and I just don't agree with that. I don't think that adds to the character of Cupertino.
The other issue that staff brought up as another strong reason for moving ahead on this is that
we are losing the style and the tradition of Cupertino houses to some extent because you can't
build them under the current regulation, where you could be more compatible if we allowed
more flexibility.
Summarized that there were two Commissioners in favor of the changes, and two against, and
one on the post.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said that he was against the changes, because the regulation needs to be thought out more and
cleaned up. If there is a way we can do that here, he would be willing to look at it.
Chair Miller:
• Asked Com. Kaneda if staff came back with a specific set of guidelines for the Planning
Commission to review, would that be acceptable.
13-154
Cupertino Planning Commission 35 July 8, 2008
Com. Kaneda:
• Said it would be acceptable if staff presented a specific set of guidelines for further review.
Com. Rose:
• Said the examples everyone is giving of thi;~ new plan are homes that people azen't wanting to
build in Cupertino, and I don't think it is a :matter of not being able to because as pointed out,
there is an avenue to build any kind of home you want; you just have to get an exception and
the process that we are looking at would include additional DRC review anyway.
• I am wondering if we should list some certain design styles, because I would be comfortable
with that. My concern because what I see is a predominant Mediterranean style home and I
see it where there were not second floor ratios that were built 10 to 20 years ago and I see a
consistent desire to max out whatever building size you can do. I don't see this interest in
bringing in new design and maybe if I could just do this; and I am not hearing from staff that
people are asking how they can get their two story Craftsman or their New England
Connecticut style home; I am hearing that everyone wants to build as big a home as they can
and that tends to be the Mediterranean style so that is what concerns me. So if we want to go
specific, why don't we list out some typical ;styles that are comfortable and if you want to task
staff, they could outline what is a soap box home and that could be an example of how you
could have a larger ratio than 45% of the second floor.
Chair~MiIler:
• I am not sure why not; the first comment we made is just get an exception; and therein is the
key issue because you have to spend a lot of money to do a design these days. You go to an
architect and he wants $30,000; if you go in :For an exception, and the owner has to put up the
money, the architect will say you have 50% chance they will let you do the exception, and he
will say it is not worth the money, because they are on a timeline and they are on a budget and
they don't have money to gamble with. T'he comment "just get an exception" is a very
significant hurdle; that is why people don't da it.
Com. Rose:
• It sounds like we are still asking people to go through a design process; if they say they put
their trellis; and there is argument whether it i:s a trellis; they are told to go to DRC.
Chair Miller: '
• The difference is you can do some sketches and work with staff and the cost is not that high•
that is the issue why people don't go and people will not go for an exception. It is too
expensive.
Com. Rose:
• Said she felt it was still not adequately thought out.
Chair Miller:
• We have a difference of opinion on that. The other thing I don't think we want to do is say we
are only going to allow certain styles; then we ,sre getting into the job of being architects.
Com. Rose:
• Said she agreed, and knows what the azchite:ct does; but I also feel that what is going to
happen if this happens; it is not that people will say they don't have to build such a big first
floor; I can build a big first floor, I can build a big second floor and as a speaker mentioned,
what is happening it is lovely to think that people are running around with their plans saying
neighbor, I just got the lot and here is what I am going to do; the reality is that it is not
13 - 155
Cupertino Planning Commission 36 July 8, 2008
happening. My feeling is that before we jump into something like this, there needs to be more
discussion around what we are trying to achieve. Because what this will achieve is stucco
walls from the first floor to the second floor.
Chair Millers
• The reality is that it is happening because everyone who does a second story house has to put a
rendering in front of their house and the story poles, so that no neighbor can possibly miss it.
Even though some people go and talk to their neighbors, at this point what we force them to do
is, you don't want to talk to your neighbor, you want to stick it our in front like a big
advertising sign. If the neighbor becomes upset when he sees it, he will come knocking on
your door; and if he doesn't knock on your door, he will come down to the Planning
Deparhnent and say that he is upset about what is going up there, do something about it.
Nothing is getting past the neighbors anymore; we fixed that when we changed the ordinance 3
years ago.
Com. Rose:
• Nothing is getting past the neighbors but then when they bring it to our attention we tell them
what the ordinance allows, and if they do not like the ordinance, the community has to get
together and make their neighborhood a single story only neighborhood like Fairgrove. If the
ordinance allows it, it is very rare that you are going to get a situation in which the DRC or this
body is going to overturn something if the ordinance allows and you will argue that you are
selling houses to people and they are looking at our ordinance and saying if I can build 45%
then I should be able to build 45%. If we put it in the ordinance, then people are going to
expect it. We are relying on this list of design treatments to soften it, and that is when we get
into the architect's business that we were saying we didn't want to get into. I am not saying
this is all a very bad thing, but it is a big thing and it is something that needs to be thought
about and if we are really trying to have houses like Gary put on here, which I am not really
seeing unless you go out to Rancho. If we really want that and that is what we are working
toward, then we need to think about how we are working towards that; we don't just change a
percentage.
Com. Kaneda:
• Said he recently went through a home remodel; the architect said not to do two stories and he
now has a sprawling house because he followed the ordinance.
Com. Rose:
• If we are going to change this ordinance, Iet's be careful about. Maybe Chair Miller's
suggestions are right, maybe we tax staff with defining all these different details for each type
of house we are going to get; but I think the reality is, is what people really want to build is a
much bigger Mediterranean house with stucco walls.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Has staff sat down and said with the setback requirements that we have, what is the maximum
second story percentile that is achievable? (Sta„~f said it was 100%)
• Has staff evaluated the conflicting language of the proposed modifications to the ordinance
based on the rest of the language in the Rl, because you are giving different directions.
Steve Piasecld:
• Clarified you could even go more than 100% if you take out the 45% rule, second floor to fast
floor. You have two distinctive processes in the ordinance; that is why you lost the conflict.
You can follow the old rules or you can come in and follow the new rules in which case you
13-156
Cupertino Planning Commission 37 July 8, 2008
are going to have greater design scrutiny based on these words in the ordinance. Some
Commissioners feel it needs to be more than words, maybe we need some design guidelines so
that it is more specific We don't have a problem with that; the examples we looked at in other
communities were developed by azchitects but they have a much longer more scrutiny in the
process; they cost a lot of money, none of which were part of the tasks that came from the
Council so the Commission has a couple of options. You can say we really can't deal with this
the way it is; we need more design guidelines and you need to authorize every expenditure to
get that done and then we will feel more comfortable with it. You could also task staff with it
and they will come back with pictures and the best we can do; homes don't look like they fit in
Cupertino. You could give that a month try. We could take a shot at it and provide more
specificity based on the comments from this Commission and the public. The other option is
you can say that we cannot get agreement, ;send it back to the Council without agreement and
we can explain the debate, because you had a good discussion and this is so typical of Rl;
there is so much passion that goes into it; we heard it the last time we went through this;
everybody has an interest in RI. It couldn't hurt to wait 4 to 6 weeks and let us take a shot to
drill down on some of the questions and issues to see if we can fmd better language that will
provide better levels of comfort.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• Said she did not feel it accomplished the goal; I think we are going to have a lot of unintended
consequences of this because we are taking a quick swag at this; which is what I think it is;
let's just take the dial and move it over here now and wait 5 years and see what is billed to the
city. I don't think we can do that.
Steve Piasecki:
• Asked if the concern was that they would erid up with stucco boxes with concrete roofs with
appliques and a few trellises.
Vice Chair Giefer:
• The public is going to feel as though we are back to the pre-existing ordinance where the
public is going to say that staff is an impediment to building; we cannot get anything approved
in Cupertino. Everybody's opinion of existing; vs. future is different; I am not saying we don't
need to re-think this; I am just saying that tl;.is will not solve the problem that we have been
asked to address and solve; and that is why I am not supporting it. I am completely supportive
of saying let's take a look at FAR, having meaningful design review put back in, and I would
support that. I think that just trying to fix this one little ratio isn't going to achieve what we
wanted to achieve. I think we are going to have unintended consequences.
Chair Miller:
• Said he understood what they were saying; and would rather try to address the problem than
not address it, and Council has not given them the latitude to open the entire Rl, so it is what it
is and there is a consensus for letting staff give: it a try.
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy, second by Com. Kaneda to let staff take another look at
it; to include some language about strong discouragement of exceptions to second
story setbacks requirements for any changes,
Steve Piasecki:
• Suggested that the motion provide at least 6 vreeks to go back and restudy it. Relative to the
exceptions, eliminate them; with this route there is the variance option which is a harder
standazd to meet; discouraging exceptions does;n't work.
13 - 157
Cupertino Planning Commission 38 July 8, 2008
Second: Com. Kaneda
Com. Kaneda:
• Does it make sense to get some outside professional help to try to come up with your
guidelines; staff is understaffed and there are no staff architects;. and in my mind a fair amount
of this is highly architecturally related.
Steve Piaseclci:
• That is what the other cities are doing. The Los Gatos guidelines were developed by our
architectural adviser at considerable expense and considerable time. The concept doesn't
really change from city to city a lot; we can try to call from the examples we have given you
and other examples; maybe we can put something together. If we are not successful maybe we
would still want to have an architectural adviser come in and look over our shoulder. We will
look into different options to try to do it with less expense and time, If that fails, you can send
it to the City Council and say you really cannot do this without doing more elaborately and
opening the whole R1 box up. It would be a year and a half and a quarter of a million dollars.
Chair Miller:
• Maybe there is a middle alternative; perhaps staff does their best shot at coming up with some
guidelines. We have heard tonight from at least one person who is an architect; I know of
others who do business in Cupertino who would be happy to meet with staff and give further
input and perhaps refine it, so it wouldn't take a lot of tune from any individual architect to do
that.
Steve Piaseclci:
• Said they would give it a try, and likely would seek their architectural adviser on an hourly
basis
(Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair Giefer No; Com. Rose No.)
5. Dispassion of the pre-review option for the development prop ls.
Steve Piaseckrpresented the staff report:
• Said that the\C cif sent it back to the Planning C fission asking that they expand the
noticing and look ome other options, specifi y the one seen in So. Vallco that in the
cases of some lazger de ments, perhaps so a sort of expanded community review process
is appropriate; otherwise tak other look all the options for eazly review. We have given
you the verbatim transcript whic as make it cleazer exactly what is intended. This is one
given the lateness of the hour, we make a greater outreach and with more notice, we
could get more developers top cipate.
Keith Murphy: -
• Said the proposal s baffling as to what its real ben twill be; I understand the idea of
talking with dev opers about future applications they may ant to bring in front of the city
and how may the community might feel about that or how s eels about that. I have a real
problem it sets up the city for a lot of legal problems, would lik a city attorney's input,
and if feels it will be more of a problem for the city or is it rea oing to solve the
pro ms that we think it is. Is the city attorney going to be part of this pro s to be able to
monitor some of these meetings and see if they really are going in the right direc which the
Planning Commission and City Council would like them to; or are they going to be more of a
13 - 158
ExxIBT~rs
BEGIN
HERE
L' L l O l ~ / l0 ~
X13
CHAPTER 19.28: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (Rl) ZONES
Section
19.28.010 Purposes.
19.28.020 Applicability of regu]ations.
19.28.030 Permitted uses.
19.28.040 Conditional uses.
19.28A50 Development regulations (site).
19-28.060 Development regulations (buildin=).
19.28.070 Landscape requirements.
19.2.8.080 Permitted yard encroachments.
19.28.090 Minor residential permit.
14.28.100 Two-story residential permit.
19.28-1 1 O Exceptions.
19.28-720 Development regulations-Eichler(R1-e).
19.28-130 Development regulations(R1-a).
19.2$-1-40 Interpretation by the Planning Director.
19.28.010 Purposes.
R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance
areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to:
A. Enhance the identit}~ of residential neighborhoods;
B. Ensure provision of light. air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual
residential parcels;
five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an
area with a slope of thirty percent or greater.
D. An application for building permits filed and accepted by the Community
Development Department (fees paid and permit number issued) on or before October 2,
2007 may proceed with application processing under ordinances in effect at that time.
(Ord. 2011, 2007; Ord. 2000, 2007; Ord. 1954, (part), 2005; Ord. 1886, (part), 2001; Ord.
1868, (part), 2001; Ord. 1860, § ] (part), 2000; Ord. 1834, (part), 1999; Ord. 1635, § 1
(part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.28.060 Development Regulations (Building).
A. Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage ~'t,~sl~-~ i. forty-five percent of the
net lot area. An additional five percent of lot coverage is allowed for roof overhangs,
patios, porches and other similar features not substantially enclosed by exterior walls.
B. Floor Area Ratio. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to set an outside
(maximum) limit for square footage. The FAR shall be used in conjunction with the
residential development standards and _vuidelines in this ordinance in determining
whether the mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
1 . The maximum floor area ratio of all structures on a lot °'--~" -'-~ is forty-five
percent.
2. The maximum. floor area of a second story _'--~~ is forty-five percent of the
existing or proposed first story floor area, or seven hundred fifty square feet,
whichever is greater.
3. The Director of Community Development may -rant approval u, a second floor
to ~=round floor ratio greater than 4~% provided that thz followinv design
~rinciplzs are met
a. An identifiable architectural style shall be provided;
b. Design features. proportions and details shall be consistent «ith the architectural
style selected;
c. Materials shall be of high quality;
d. Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure;
e. Visual relief shall be~rovided for two-story walls;
f. Ensure appropriate building mass and scale;
v The design shall rzflect symmetry. proportion and balance.
ii. i ne ivito«m~ vicual reuet tecnmques malt t,e nrovtaed it appropriate for the
style of the residence:
i. Extended or wrap around porches
ii. Pon outs and bay «indows
iii. Material and color chances
iv. t~~'ide overhangs ~~.ith projecting brackets
v. .Tuliet balconies
vi. ~'.%indocv boxes and pot shelves
vii. Landscaped trellises and lattices
viii. Or other similar architectural features deemed to be appropriate by the Direct of
Con~rnunity Development
-~. The Director of Conirnunity Development may elevate projects exceedin the
~5~"c second floor to ground floor ratio to the Design Review Committee for
re~ie~~~ if deemed a}~t~mpriate.
~. Interior areas with heights above sixteen feet, measured from the floor to the top
of the roof-rafters, have the mass and bulk of a two-story house and •',-r,-'-n-r--~ are
counted as floor area.
a. If the house is a two-story house, this area will count as second story floor area;
otherwise, the area will count as first floor area.
C. Design Guidelines.
1. Any new t~~-o-story house, or second-story addition to an existing house, shall be
generally consistent with the adopted sin__le-family residential guidelines. The Director of
Community Development shall review the project and shall determine that the following
items are met prior to design approval:
a. The mass and bulk of the design .',-,~-:1~~~ is reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction shall not be disproportionately
larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights; ..
b. The design shall use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve
higher volume interior spaces;
c. There shall not be a three-car wide driveway curb cut.
CC %c~2r~D~
-~ l ~
f 1 ~a~
°z ~- ~